FAIR – supporting auto accident victims through advocacy and education
FAIR – supporting auto accident victims through advocacy and education
FAIR – supporting auto accident victims through advocacy and education
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.
In addition to procedural changes and challenges, the AABS & LAT will require new strategies and approaches to be employed. The AABS mandate is to “deal with your case in a fair, independent and timely manner. Our goal is to reach a final decision about your benefits within 6 months.” This lofty mandate will certainly change how we manage and think about AB disputes.
http://www.gluckstein.com/
In today’s case (Tan v. Mintzler) the Plaintiff was injured in a 2012 collision and experienced chronic cognitive symptoms. At trial a debate arose about whether the symptoms were due to a head injury from the collision or secondary to chronic pain. The Court found the Plaintiff did indeed suffer a head injury however noted the debate was largely insignificant as whatever the diagnosis the symptoms were linked to the trauma of the collision.
The “Making Ontario Roads Safer Act”, or Bill 31, was approved unanimously in June and will come into effect Sept. 1—meaning some new rules for drivers and, in many cases, heavier penalties for breaking them.
http://toronto.ctvnews.ca/
Collision rates increased in nearly half of the 33 highway zones where the B.C. government raised speed limits two years ago – and the number of serious and fatal crashes increased by 11 per cent.
Fernando Paul, 65, now uses a wheelchair after injuring his back on the job. His impairment rating was reduced because the WSIB claimed he had degenerative disk disease in a different part of his spine, making him ineligible for the board’s serious injury program.
https://www5.fsco.gov.on.ca/AD/4940
ANALYSIS
The Arbitrator found section 2(1) of the New Regulation to be clear and unambiguous; for accidents occurring on or after September 1, 2010, the benefits payable (other than optional benefits) were under the New Regulation, including interest payable at 1 percent per month. She stated that if the Legislature’s intention was that an insurer would not be subject to the new, reduced interest provision in the New Regulation, that could have been specified, but it was not.
Recently, contingency fee agreements in Ontario for personal injury cases have come under attack. Seeing this sort of news is very disappointing and disheartening. A recent decision from the Ontario Court of Appeal on this issue was highlighted in the news. Here is a link to a quick article. I cannot comment on what the former lawyer did in that case, but it’s certainly does not appear to be good for the legal profession.
http://www.
Here’s the scenario:
You’ve been working diligently for the same employer, at the same job for years. You’ve given it your all. Countless hours of painstaking work. The job pays well. You have some great colleagues at work. And you have a benefits plan that you believe is fantastic. Part of that so-called benefits package is disability insurance, which, in theory, you’ve been told will cover your wages if for whatever reason you can’t return to work on account of injury, illness or disability. You know little about the disability plan because you’ve never had to use it before and you’ve never missed out on work for a prolonged period of time. Your past work attendance has been excellent. Your performance reviews are always top notch.
http://www.advocatedaily.com/