• 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

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.

Two takes on basic income

The recent 1.5 per cent increase in social assistance by the Ontario government for Ontario Works and Ontario Disability Support Program recipients is totally unacceptable and is a slap in the face to these people who are forced, not by choice, to live in ghettos across the province of Ontario.

http://www.thestar.com/opinion/letters_to_the_editors/2016/03/24/two-takes-on-basic-income.html

Who is liable for insurance in a driverless car?

“There are a number of logistical challenges,” said Dianne Craig, Ford Canada’s president.
Craig says that insurance companies have to delineate what coverage passengers in self-driving vehicles would need. Also governments would need to tackle laws that address what Craig calls “autonomous” vehicles.

http://www.insurancebusiness.ca/news/who-is-liable-for-insurance-in-a-driverless-car-205023.aspx

Traumatic Brain Injury: The Hidden Epidemic Nobody Wants to Talk About

A traumatic brain injury occurs when an external force impacts the brain and impairs certain functions. In a fraction of a second after a car collision, the driver and passenger’s heads can smash into the windshield at the same speed that the vehicle was moving, even as the car frame is buckling. It’s no surprise that the majority of reported TBIs are results of motor vehicle crashes, with almost half of those hospitalized experiencing long-term disability. [3][4] Accidental falls, rough play, and contact sports may also lead to TBI, and research has shown that 50 percent of all injuries killing children in the U.S. and Canada include a brain injury.

http://psychcentral.com/blog/archives/2016/03/28/traumatic-brain-injury-the-hidden-epidemic-nobody-wants-to-talk-about/

Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) Rules of Practice and Procedure, Version 1 (April 1, 2016)

LAT adjudicates matters in a variety of diverse areas such as alcohol and gaming regulation, motor vehicle impoundments and driver’s licences, new home warranties, consumer protection, regulation of various occupations and businesses, and starting on April 1, 2016, in relation to automobile insurance Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule (SABS) disputes.

Information about LAT’s Automobile Accident Benefits Service (AABS) is available here: www.slasto.gov.on.ca/en/AABS

2.3 “AUTOMOBILE ACCIDENT BENEFITS SERVICE (AABS) CLAIM” “Automobile Accident Benefits Service (AABS) Claim” means an application to the Tribunal pursuant to s. 280(2) of the Insurance Act seeking resolution of a dispute involving statutory accident benefits.

2.23 “STATUTORY ACCIDENT BENEFITS SCHEDULE (SABS)” “SABS” means the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule, Ontario Regulation 34/10 (Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule—Effective September 1, 2010), made under the Insurance Act, as revised from time to time, or a previous version of the SABS.

INFO: http://ow.ly/103AM9

Illogic of jury awards – Celebrities often get millions of dollars, car crash victims a pittance

How is it that two high-profile people can be awarded tens of millions of dollars for invasions of privacy while two private citizens are awarded a pittance for substantial physical injuries?…

My theory, and it is only a theory, is that the insurance lobby’s campaign publicizing insurance fraud has been so successful that many jurors have become poisoned in how they view run-of-the-mill motor vehicle accidents.

In other words, they too easily view plaintiffs as fakers.

http://www.torontosun.com/2016/03/26/illogic-of-jury-awards

Changes ahead for Accident Benefits Dispute Resolution

If you have ever had to dispute a decision related to accident benefits under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule (SABS), you probably dealt with the Financial Services Commission of Ontario (FSCO).  Since 1997, FSCO’s Dispute Resolution Service has served as the adjudicator for disputes between injured citizens and insurance companies.

http://www.vandykelaw.ca/2016/03/changes-ahead-for-accident-benefits-dispute-resolution/

New edition of “Denied Benefits” book now available

The updated “So You Think You’re Covered! The Insurance Industry Rip-Off” is now available.
This 360-page edition has been completely revamped to include a researched exposé of 120 extra pages that expose how auto insurers, the WSIB and disability insurers deny medical, rehab and income replacement benefits to legitimate claimants. Nearly one out of two claimants is denied. It doesn’t matter if a person is seriously injured or not. The catastrophically injured also need to fight to receive the CAT benefits available in their policies – benefits that the Wynne government has cut in half commencing June 1.

http://deniedbenefitclaims.com/blog.html

ONSC: Excluded Driver is Not a Listed Driver for SABS Coverage

In Dominion v. State Farm, the claimant was a passenger in a State Farm vehicle when he was involved in a motor vehicle accident. He claimed accident benefits from Dominion.

http://www.insblogs.com/auto/onsc-excluded-driver-not-listed-driver-sabs-coverage/6552

Issues to consider when reviewing costs of care claims

As a litigation accountant, one may review and quantify several life care plans each week, both for plaintiff and defense counsel.  On occasion, comparisons between reports are completed, using a ‘compare and contrast’ or ‘exception’ approach.  The calculations may appear simple; present valuing the costs using actuarial estimates, taking into account discount rates, mortality and inflation.  However, there are many issues to consider when reviewing these costs of care reports.  It is prudent to see the overall conceptual issues, rather than merely inputting the individual values.

http://www.collinsbarrow.com/en/cbn/publications/issues-to-consider-when-reviewing-costs-of-care-claims?utm_source=Mondaq&utm_medium=syndication&utm_campaign=View-Original

Corbett v Odorico, 2016 ONSC 1964 (CanLII)

[14]           An important issue arises in this case as to whether the statutory deductables of $30,000 applicable to general damages when this accident occurred in December of 2009 should apply to this jury verdict. Effective August 1st 2015, the regulations under Ontario’s Insurance Act were amended to provide for an increase in the deductible to $36,540, which was to apply “until December 31, 2015”, with the amount to be revised annually thereafter according to a prescribed formula. The new section 5.1(1) of O. Reg. 461/96 provides as follows:

Deductible Amounts

 

4.1  (1) For the purpose of sub-subparagraph 3 i B of subsection 267.5 (7) of the Act, the prescribed amount is the amount determined in accordance with the following rules:

 

1.      Until December 31, 2015, the prescribed amount is $36,540.

 

2.      On January 1, 2016, the prescribed amount set out in paragraph 1 shall be revised by adjusting the amount by the indexation percentage published under subsection 268.1 (1) of the Act for that year.

 

3.      On January 1 in every year after 2016, the prescribed amount that applied for the previous year shall be revised by adjusting the amount by the indexation percentage published under subsection 268.1 (1) of the Act for the year.  O. Reg. 221/15, s. 2.

[19]           Applying the new statutory deductible of $36,540 to the jury verdict of $33,000 for general damages results in a nil recovery. Similarly, the new statutory deductible for FLA damages (as would the previous deductible), reduces the FLA award for the husband and children to a nil recovery.

Notice

[20]           An issue arises in this case as to whether interest on the damages awarded (agreed to be 1.37%) should run from August 25, 2011, when the Defendant was served with a notice letter or from a later date when the Defendant eventually notified his insurer. I accept that the date of notice to the Defendant governs and interest runs therefrom to the date of the jury verdict (1574 days in this case).

Set-Offs

[21]           The parties have agreed that the jury awards for past housekeeping and for past caregiving must be reduced by the amount of statutory accident benefits received by the Plaintiff for those matters. The deductions have been agreed upon. The net award for past housekeeping is $13,196.63 and interest (running from the notice letter) is $731.82. Similarly, the net award for past caregiving is $8,875 plus interest of $492.16.  As noted, the rate of interest is 1.37%.

[22]           In summary, judgment will issue for the Plaintiff for the sum of $56,294.98 inclusive of interest which is comprised of: past housekeeping $13,927.82; past caregiving $9,367.16; future housekeeping $21,000; and future caregiving $12,000.

http://canlii.ca/t/gnxvz