There are instances where injured workers CANNOT sue. If they’ve been hurt or injured on the job site, there are instances where the injured party MUST pursue a WSIB claim. In such instances, it’s important to find out if your employer is a Schedule 1 or Schedule 2 employer. The difference is that is that you CANNOT sue a Schedule 1 employer; while you can sue a Schedule 2 employer. How do you find out if you’re dealing with a Schedule 1 or a Schedule 2 employer? That’s easy. All it takes is a call to the WSIB at 1-800-387-0750. Just ask the person who picks up the phone. It’s an easy search for their staff to make.
Author Archives: Admin2
The View From Up North: Who’s More Litigious, Canada or the United States?
Norton Rose has done something interesting and semi-useful. It conducted a survey of the experiences and opinions of corporate counsel regarding various aspects of litigation. It cleverly titled this report, “2015 Litigation Trends Annual Survey.” Apparently this is the eleventh annual edition of the report, which makes me wonder why I’m only hearing about it for the first time in 2015?
Ontario Health Minister to table bill strengthening patient privacy
Health Minister Eric Hoskins, who is also a physician, told reporters on Wednesday that in the fall he will reintroduce, with some enhanced measures, a bill on protecting patient privacy that died on the order paper when the election was called last year.
Speaker’s Corner: Let paralegals act in arbitration matters
There are strong policy arguments in favour of paralegal representation in arbitrations and, given the uncertainty, the Law Society of Upper Canada should update its bylaws to confirm that paralegals can appear at arbitrations pursuant to the Arbitration Act.
http://www.lawtimesnews.com/201506154747/commentary/let-paralegals-act-in-arbitration-matters
Ontario Minor Injury Guideline a limit but not exclusion to Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule: Court
Nothing in Ontario’s Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule “expressly incorporates by reference the entirety” of the province’s Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) for auto insurance claims, but the “burden of proof” is on claimants “to establish entitlement to the appropriate level” of auto accident benefits, the province’s Divisional Court suggested in a recent ruling.
Scarlett v Belair Insurance, 2015 ONSC 3635 (CanLII) — 2015-06-05
[…] As a preliminary issue, Belair brought a motion seeking an order that Mr. Scarlett was suffering from Minor Injuries and was therefore limited in the benefits he could claim. […] LENWORTH SCARLETT […] 6. That he erred in determining that the issue of whether Mr. Scarlett‘s impairment was predominantly a minor injury should be determined only after a full arbitration hearing. […] several errors in his analysis and remitted the matter back to arbitration before a different arbitrator, for a new and full hearing on all of Mr. Scarlett‘s outstanding claims. […]
Crown asks for jail time in case of dirty Peel cop
BRAMPTON – A Peel Regional Police officer convicted of more than 40 charges of fraud, breach of trust and obstructing justice should be jailed for a lengthy period, a Brampton court has heard during his sentencing hearing.
Wondering what Insurance Company CEOs make in a year? It’s a heck of a lot more than the $400/wk accident victims are expected to live on!
|
Donald A. Guloien Chief Executive Officer, President and Director, Manulife Financial Corporation
|
| Age | Total Calculated Compensation | This person is connected to 21 board members in 3 different organizations across 4 different industries. |
| 56 | C$14,484,208 As of Fiscal Year 2014 |
Ontario Trial Lawyers comment on FSCO Draft Statement of Priorities
Injured persons have always been and remain at a significant disadvantage when trying to challenge the decisions made by their insurance companies. Insurers have financial and other resources available to them that injured persons do not. This often creates an unfair advantage.
OTLA Comment on 2015 FSCO Draft Statement of Priorities May 20 2015
FAIR comment on FSCO Draft Statement of Priorities 2015
Why is it that there is so little mention of the priorities/concerns of the injured victims the system purports to serve?
If it is truly the mandate of the FSCO and the “measurement of providing regulatory services that protect the public interest and enhance public confidence in the regulated sectors” then shouldn’t the quality of the coverage and access to that coverage be of utmost importance?
If people had confidence in the quality of the coverage and access to benefits as promised, would over 20,000 people be signing a petition?
When hundreds of people rally at Queen’s Park to protest the cuts to benefits to the most catastrophically injured of Ontario’s auto accident victims; is that not a clear signal that consumers (in this case people who have used the product) have lost confidence in our coverage?
Ontario Trial Lawyers comment on FSCO Draft Statement of Priorities
Injured persons have always been and remain at a significant disadvantage when trying to challenge the decisions made by their insurance companies. Insurers have financial and other resources available to them that injured persons do not. This often creates an unfair advantage.
OTLA Comment on 2015 FSCO Draft Statement of Priorities May 20 2015