“ Mr Neinstein argues that he has had a long and distinguished career representing unfortunate accident plaintiffs, and that his mis-steps in this case are isolated incidents in an otherwise exceptional career.”
http://www.canlii.org/en/on/onscdc/doc/2015/2015onsc7909/2015onsc7909.html
[78] The appellants seek a declaration that any contingency agreement entered into by Neinstein & Associates with a client in which the firm has an entitlement to take any portion of costs in addition to a fee is unenforceable. Making such a determination is a question of law. Since there is evidence that this was a term of Neinstein & Associate’s standard form precedents, there is a factual foundation for it on the record. The determination of whether the agreements are unenforceable does not require a finding of breach of fiduciary duty within each lawyer and client relationship. Rather, the question would be whether entering into such an agreement without getting approval of the court, in and of itself, renders the agreement unenforceable. The only individual analysis required would be for each member of the class to be party to an agreement containing such a clause. Such a term can be built into the definition of the class. This would be a question common to all members of the class and one which would advance the interests of all members.
http://www.slaw.ca/2015/12/23/wednesday-whats-hot-on-canlii-146/
Amendments to Insurance Act regulations are proposed to provide for the transition of a transformed Ontario Automobile Insurance Dispute Resolution System (AIDRS) from the Financial Services Commission of Ontario (FSCO) to the Ministry of the Attorney General’s Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT), and the wind down of disputes filed at FSCO.
Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule (SABS) provisions that apply to the dispute resolution process at FSCO will continue to apply, as they read on March 31, 2016, to all applications that were received by FSCO before the transition date but are not finally determined before that date. The SABS will also be amended, where necessary, to apply to applications filed at the LAT on or after April 1, 2016.
http://www.ontariocanada.com/registry/view.do?postingId=20442&language=en
But tucked away in Bill 15 is an odd provision that discriminates against those injured in auto accidents.
Bill 15 removes the right to have no-fault benefits disputes with insurers dealt with by the courts.
Why injured people should lose their right to have such disputes resolved by judges is puzzling. http://www.torontosun.com/2015/12/05/law-unfair-to-car-crash-victims
“It’s a signal to insurance companies that when they’re going to deny benefits to a person or they’re going to deny that somebody has a catastrophic impairment, they better make sure that they have followed the legislation and their assessments have been done properly,” says Leonard Kunka of Thomson Rogers, counsel for Thomas Waldock who was seriously injured in March of 2008. “To rely on a defective assessment to the detriment of their insured is really a breach of their obligation of good faith to their client.”
Waldock and State Farm Preliminary issue FSCO 4315
Waldock and State Farm FSCO 4689
In the latest case (Preston v. Kontzamanis) of courts having critical comments for medico-legal practices, reasons for judgement were released today by the BC Supreme Court, Quesnel Registry, rejecting the opinion of a defence retained doctor who “did not meet with, examine or interview” the Plaintiff but nonetheless authored a report opining on the Plaintiff’s injuries.
http://bc-injury-law.com/blog/expert-meet-examine-interview-plaintiff-weight
Safety, Licensing Appeals and Standards Tribunals Ontario (SLASTO) is providing regular updates about the transformation of the Auto Insurance Dispute Resolution System (AIDRS) and its transition from the Financial Services Commission of Ontario (FSCO) to the Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT).
The new system at LAT will begin accepting applications on April 1, 2016. The LAT AIDRS will be streamlined to a single direct review and hearing process in front of an independent adjudicative tribunal.
Victim’s group calls for the Auditor General and the Ontario Ombudsman to investigate what is happening to Ontario’s injured and disabled citizens
TORONTO, November 17, 2015 PRESS RELEASE – Ontario auto insurers are poised to make higher profits on the backs of Ontario’s disabled and injured MVA victims in 2016 while continuing to build up the provincial deficit by downloading the expense of victims to the taxpayers. Recently passed legislation means that coverage for the most injured MVA victims will be cut in half.
In October Ontario’s over 9 million drivers learned through the Lazar Prisman Report that they had been overcharged for auto insurance and likely overpaid by $1.5 billion in the last two years alone.
In recent weeks we learned just how challenging recovery is and how poorly the WSIB injured workers are treated in the Prescription Over-Ruled: Report on How Ontario’s Workplace Safety and Insurance Board Systematically Ignores the Advice of Medical Professionals. Press release Nov 2016 Ontario’s Shame and Scandal – how the injured and disabled are punished by government policy
“We consciously did not choose advocates for one point of view or another.”
TORONTO, Oct. 15, 2015 /CNW/ – An updated study released today provides alarming new data on auto insurance in Ontario.
The study, conducted by York University Schulich School of Business Professors Fred Lazar and Eli Prisman, reveals that consumers likely overpaid by $1.5 billion in the last two years alone. This includes overpayments of $700 million (or about $100 for each insurance policy) in 2014 on top of the $840 million ($120 per policy) in 2013.
Read: Lazar Report October 2015