Walrond will join social justice group ACORN Ottawa at a rally outside MPP Bob Chiarelli’s office Friday, where they’ll call for the right to keep more of their income while receiving payments from the Ontario Disability Support Program. They’re hoping to get 5,000 signatures on a petition, too.
Latest News Articles
FAIR does not accept responsibility for comments, opinions, statistical information etc. associated with the links listed below. Any opinions, points of view, etc. are not necessarily shared by FAIR.
For a complete list of recent articles, please go to our 'Media Articles' page under 'In the News'.
We are updating our site and we appreciate your patience.
Psychiatrist diagnosed local optician without meeting him
A Burlington optician is outraged after discovering a psychiatrist he’d never met wrote a critical two-page psychiatric evaluation about him without ever seeing or talking to him.
The optician, Jay Hakim, filed a complaint with the provincial medical regulator, which concluded the psychiatrist’s conduct was appropriate.
https://ca.news.yahoo.com/
100001811438 (Re), 2014 CanLII 91057 (CA VRAB)
To be found credible, a medical opinion must demonstrate – at the very least – that it is taking into consideration the specifics of an Appellant’s medical history. It is not sufficient for a doctor to merely claim that they have “taken into account” the history and then move directly to a conclusion. An understandable analysis is a vital part of a credible medical opinion.
Our duty to evaluate the quality of medical opinions is recognized by the Federal Court. This is part of the analytical process, as affirmed in the case of King2, when the Federal Court wrote that the Board cannot be expected to simply “rubber stamp” any medical opinion put before it.
In this case the doctor – in neither of his two opinions – explained how he could reach his conclusion absent any record of shoulder injury at the time of the 2003 accident, absent any recorded shoulder complaints, and absent any other injury during the Appellant’s military service.
If anything, the doctor appears to be standing for the proposition that the shoulder disabilities have developed from the other parts of the body that were recorded as having been injured in 2003. Such would be a consequential relationship, which is not presently before the Board. We are limited to the direct service connection under Section 45 of the Canadian Forces Members and Veterans Re-establishment and Compensation Act.
Sawah v Warren, 2016 ONSC 5370 (CanLII)
[6] For the purposes of this Motion, it is necessary only to note that the action brought by the Plaintiff arises out of the settlement of a tort action for personal injuries allegedly caused as a result of a motor vehicle accident, and a parallel claim for Statutory Accident Benefits. Both the Defendant Warren, who is a solicitor, and the Defendant Jhuti, who is a licenced paralegal, were involved, although their involvement was different. Jhuti, not being a solicitor, could not act for the Plaintiff in the tort action, although she could act for him on the Statutory Accident Benefits claim.
[7] In substance, it is alleged by the Plaintiff that the Statutory Accident Benefits claim was settled for $15,000, while he was told it was settled for $6,000. He alleges that the tort claim was settled for $22,500, while he was told it was settled for $18,000. The Plaintiff alleges that this was part of a scheme by one or both of the Defendants to pocket the difference in the amounts of the actual settlements and the amounts represented to him.
[19] To me, it is inconceivable that either Mr. Warren or Mr. Pickard could have believed that the payment to Ms. Jhuti was not relevant, having regard to the allegations made in the case. Fundamentally, it is alleged by Mr. Sawah that he was defrauded by Mr. Warren, Ms. Jhuti or both of them, as a result of a misrepresentation of the amount of the settlement. The fact that Ms. Jhuti was paid a substantial amount of money out of the settlement proceeds would be highly relevant. Mr. Warren says he was counsel for Mr. Sawah, and the contingency fee was his. The fact that a large sum was paid to Ms. Jhuti is certainly suspicious. Of course, it would be open to them to provide whatever explanation they chose for the payment. However, it cannot be realistically be asserted that the documents, and particularly the cheque to Ms. Jhuti, are not relevant.
[20] The explanation is particularly suspicious, in my view, in view of the way in which the documents were ultimately disclosed. At the very least, the candour of Mr. Warren and Mr. Pickard is subject to serious question.
[21] The issue, then, is whether an order pursuant to Rule 59.06 (2) should be made. Under that Rule, the Court has a discretion to set aside or vary an order on the ground or fraud or of facts arising or discovered after the order was made.
[22] In this case, there is no doubt that there are facts that were discovered by the Plaintiff after my order was made. The relevant documents that would have disclosed a payment of over $9,000 to Ms. Jhuti were not disclosed until April, 2016. Counsel for the Plaintiff acknowledged, during argument, that it would have to be shown that the non-disclosure was deliberate in order to justify an order under Rule 59.06 (2).
[23] I do not accept Mr. Warren’s argument that the Plaintiff should have been able to figure out that a payment was made from what was disclosed in the report of Mr. Warren’s expert. It was certainly not clear from the expert’s report that a payment of over $9,000 was made to Ms. Jhuti, and that it was labelled “Sawah Costs”.
Babcock v Destefano, 2016 ONSC 5352 (CanLII)
[11] The independent medical examinations contemplated by the Courts of Justice Act are part of the discovery process, and are explicitly dealt with because of the intrusive nature of a personal interview and assessment which may require the party to be subjected to testing without the benefit of counsel present, which would not otherwise be available at an examination for discovery. In an action for damages for personal injuries, an independent examination is common and routine. Correspondence between Wawanesa and the plaintiff is typical, and shows negotiations and justifications as part of the exchanges.
[12] The right of Wawanesa to have an independent examination is not seriously challenged. It is the timing of the requested examinations that is in issue.
[13] I do not accept Wawanesa’s position that it has an unfettered right to a defence medical; and I do not accept its argument that the timing of this motion is irrelevant. The failure of Wawanesa to seek its defence examinations prior to the pretrials requires that the court scrutinize the requested orders more closely. The onus on the moving party is a heavy one.
$85,000 Non-Pecuniary Assessment for Chronic Shoulder Injury
In today’s case (Mitchell v. Martin) the Plaintiff was involved in a 2009 motorcycle collision caused by the Defendant where “the plaintiff was thrown from his motorcycle and injured his right shoulder, neck and back and suffered from bruising and road rash“.
Pain clinic doctor should face disciplinary hearing, lawyer says
Ontario’s medical watchdog has been too easy on a doctor who ran a clinic where patients developed serious bacterial infections, a medical malpractice lawyer argues.
The effect of traumatic brain injury on caregivers
After an individual sustains a traumatic brain injury (TBI), family members are thrown into a whirlwind of different emotions and decisions about their loved one’s care. Grief or a sense of loss may be associated with the ambiguity of the situation and changes in the survivor. Spouses, partners, parents, siblings and children may suddenly experience role changes associated with becoming a caregiver for the TBI survivor. As such, they may experience an increased responsibility for providing physical, financial and emotional support at a level they are not used to providing (Backhaus & Ibarra, 2012). The present article will discuss stressors unique to caregivers of persons with TBI, phases of adjustment post injury, challenges that family members typically experience when providing care, and the importance of recognizing and managing stress.
Total Disability: Not So Total After All!
It is standard practice for insurance companies to write these strongly worded clauses into their No-Fault Auto Insurance and in Long-Term Disability policies. Insurance companies often argue that these phrases mean exactly what they say: that if a person can do part-time work, then they are not “Totally Disabled”. Or, that if a person can do some job tasks, then they are not “Totally Disabled”.
http://otlablog.com/total-disa