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.
The union representing 2,500 production and maintenance workers at Vale Ltd. in Sudbury is calling on the Ministry of Labour to amend the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act of 1997, saying it discriminates against older workers.
http://www.thesudburystar.com/
According to Parachute, a Canadian organization dedicated to preventing injuries, when someone suffers a concussion, “the brain suddenly shifts or shakes inside the skull, and can knock against the skull’s bony surface.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/
[29] That is not to say that transfer of the file without the assumption of disbursements should necessarily be refused whenever such a retainer agreement is in place. There are other considerations that could potentially be at play. Here, the plaintiffs are on public assistance, and do not have the means to pay $11,000 in disbursements. Denying them their file could well raise access to justice issues. However, this would only become a concern if it were clear that they simply could not retain competent counsel who were willing to carry their disbursements. From all of the evidence in this file, I am not persuaded that this is the case.
[30] I find it telling that Arvai maintains that it was unable to pick up $11,000 in disbursements, yet was apparently prepared to incur legal expenses totalling $25,991.84 to litigate the issue. This was a shockingly disproportionate waste of legal resources.
[31] If anyone is entitled to costs, it is Grillo. The result that was ultimately arrived at is more favourable to Grillo than their offer to settle of February 11, 2016. However, in my view, parties and counsel should be encouraged to settle their disputes, and should not be discouraged from doing so by the threat of a substantial award of costs being made against them thereafter. I am disposed to follow the approach of Templeton J. in Talbot, and award no costs to either side on any of the matters before me.
[14] Section 5 sets out the criteria that define the day on which a claim is discovered:
5. (1) A claim is discovered on the earlier of,
(a) the day on which the person with the claim first knew,
(i) that the injury, loss or damage had occurred,
(ii) that the injury, loss or damage was caused by or contributed to by an act or omission,
(iii) that the act or omission was that of the person against whom the claim is made, and
(iv) that, having regard to the nature of the injury, loss or damage, a proceeding would be an appropriate means to seek to remedy it; and
(b) the day on which a reasonable person with the abilities and in the circumstances of the person with the claim first ought to have known of the matters referred to in clause (a).
(2) A person with a claim shall be presumed to have known of the matters referred to in clause (1) (a) on the day the act or omission on which the claim is based took place, unless the contrary is proved.
In a February 2016 Law Times article, Steve Rastin called for a public inquiry into concerns recently expressed by the Ontario Trial Lawyers Association (OTLA) that some medical-legal experts distort evidence in personal injury claims, on behalf of their insurance company clients. Mr. Rastin asserts, “The expert should give the same opinion whether he or she is hired by the insurance company or by the claimant.” When experts bow to pressures to present testimony that is biased towards the insurance company, then seriously injured persons deserving of compensation may be unfairly denied coverage or receive inadequate compensation for their injuries.
http://www.
The purpose of this bursary is to support and encourage healthcare professionals working within the brain and spinal cord injury fields to continue to pursue professional development in the areas of brain and spinal cord injury rehabilitation.
The Supreme Court of Canada announced Thursday it will not hear an appeal from an Ontario auto claimant who unsuccessfully sought a non-earner benefit more than three years after her income replacement benefits were terminated
In Ontario, a party is liable for injuries and resulting damages based on fault. There is however an exception to this rule pursuant to the joint and several liability provision of the Negligence Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. N. 1. While joint and several liability is applicable in many different areas of law, the focus of this article will remain within the context of tort claims.
The idea of a basic income guarantee for all Canadians has again moved to the front burner with the House of Commons Finance Committee and the Ontario government supporting further study and experimentation. This could be an important step forward, but incremental reform towards an income tested guarantee for working age Canadians delivered through the tax system will be the best path forward as opposed to more visionary “big bang” solutions.
http://www.northumberlandview.
The claim, to be submitted Monday at the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario, says WSIB failed to ensure Robert Sulph, 51, would have proper access to care when he returned to Jamaica after he sliced his neck open while working on a London-area tobacco farm — even though he was entitled to full and fair compensation for his injuries under provincial law.