According to Ontario’s Ministry of the Attorney General, this legislation “protects freedom of speech on matters of public interest” and will help “protect the rights of Ontario residents to speak out on public issues, without the fear of being faced with a strategic lawsuit, by allowing the courts to use a fast-track process to identify and dismiss strategic lawsuits quickly.”
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.
Ontario proposes changes to workplace safety, insurance
The proposed changes would provide fairness in the way that injured workers receiving Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (WSIB) benefits are treated, said the government. Currently, only workers on full disability benefits and survivors receive full CPI increases.
Ontario Electricity Support Program helps keep the lights and heat on
The minimum credit is $30 a month and can be as much as $50 depending on the number of people living in the household and the household’s combined income and the program runs for two years after which the household must reapply.
Waldock and State Farm [+] Arbitration, 2015-11-16, Reg 403/96. Expenses FSCO 4689
https://www5.fsco.gov.on.ca/AD/4689
Mr. Waldock seeks a Special Award of 50% of $361,520.30, which he claims were benefits that State Farm unreasonably withheld or delayed.
In my decision on the preliminary issue, issued on November 10, 2014, I referred to the oral evidence of Dr. Waisman wherein he was critical of the report prepared and submitted by Dr. Cashman to State Farm. State Farm relied upon Dr. Cashman’s report to deny that Mr. Waldock had suffered a catastrophic impairment. State Farm did not bring Dr. Cashman as a witness to that Hearing and thus, I found that his report was untested and less credible evidence than that of Dr. Waisman and his colleagues at Multidisciplinary Designated Assessment Centre (“MDAC”), including Dr. Ameis.
Upon considering that State Farm refused to accept Mr. Waldock’s application for determination of a catastrophic impairment by relying on Dr. Cashman’s report, which failed to follow the accepted guidelines to determine whether a person is catastrophically impaired; and, considering that State Farm had ample evidence that Mr. Waldock was very seriously injured and partially incapacitated as a result of the accident, I find that State Farm must be considered responsible for unreasonably withholding or delaying payments to Mr. Waldock, pursuant to the Act.
I acknowledge that upon the release of my decision on the preliminary issue, wherein I determined that Mr. Waldock had suffered a catastrophic impairment, it is my understanding that State Farm did pay Mr. Waldock a significant portion of the total past benefits, expenses and interest he sought. In my mind, this action by State Farm serves to reduce the amount of the Special Award sought by Mr. Waldock from State Farm.
Accordingly, I find that Mr. Waldock is entitled to a Special Award calculated as 30% of the value of all benefits claimed following the Arbitration. He has claimed an amount of $361,520.30. I calculate the Special Award to be $108,456.09 plus the accumulated interest, to be calculated at the rate of 2% per month, compounded monthly, beginning July 7, 2010, pursuant to Subsection 282(10) of the Act.
Brokers address heated criticism of industry
One lawyer who spent years working on behalf of insurance companies has criticize what he calls its attempts to reduce client settlements to “pennies on the dollar.”
http://www.insurancebusiness.
Thousands needed for care of badly injured cameraman
Her longtime friend Bill Atanasoff, 63, a former City-TV cameraman who was struck by a drunk driver Nov. 9, 2010, while on assignment, has been struggling with his health since he was released from hospital in June 2014.
http://www.torontosun.com/
Court Has “Inherent Jurisdiction” To Order Party To Produce Medical Report Addressing Their “Capability”
Today’s case (Walker v. Manufacturers Life Insurance Company) the Plaintiff sued the Defendant alleging breach of contract. The lawsuit had a complicated procedural history and in the course of an application a Chambers judge ordered that the lawsuit could not continue until the Plaintiff’s “doctor or psychiatrist write a report to the court and advise whether the Plaintiff is capable or incapable of managing this litigation”.
Stafford, State Farm and Intact are ordered to pay the following all-inclusive amounts within 31 days. They are jointly and severally liable for the amounts set out.
[1] This endorsement deals with the cost consequences of my decision of November 2, 2015 [2015 ONSC 6723].
[2] Gordon Fitt sneaked the family car out of the matrimonial home and then crashed it on the highway, killing Andrew Passero and injuring his passenger, Scott Heron, and Fitt’s own passenger, Dodie Barker. Fitt and his wife had each insured the vehicle for $1,000,000 liability with separate insurers. Fitt pleaded guilty to dangerous driving and went to prison.
a. Gordon Fitt and Deanna Stafford were both owners of the motor vehicle driven by Gordon in the accident;
b. Since they were both owners, Deanna is liable whether or not she consented to Gordon’s possession of the vehicle at the time; and
c. Their respective insurers were liable for $1,000,000 each, not $1,000,000 between them.
[4] The first two questions required the application of settled law to agreed facts. Fitt’s and Stafford’s insurers, Intact and State Farm, should not have denied coverage. Ownership could not seriously be contested by either Fitt or Stafford in the circumstances. State Farm and Intact, however, were justified in contesting the extent of their liability. They had an arguable point about the interpretation and application of s.277 of the Insurance Act. But they were unsuccessful.
[5] The successful side was led by the Passero plaintiffs and their insurer, Axa Canada. Their success was shared by the Heron plaintiffs and their insurer (Cooperators) and the Barker plaintiffs and their insurer (Gore Mutual). Gordon Fitt was also successful on the third question. His insurer was held to be liable for all of the $1,000,000 coverage he bought.
https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2015/2015onsc7195/2015onsc7195.html
Can the Ombudsman help you?
Have you already tried to resolve your problem with the government organization’s complaint procedures?
Fill out a complaint form, or read on to see if the Ombudsman can help you.
Review of the Mandates of the Financial Services Commission of Ontario, Financial Services Tribunal, and the Deposit Insurance Corporation of Ontario
Written comments should be provided in electronic format (preferably Word or PDF) by email to: FIPBmandatereview@ontario.
What We Were Told – About FSCO – http://www.fin.gov.on.ca/en/
- FSCO is limited by the constraints of the Ontario Public Service, and lacks the appropriate resources, governance structure and accountability to effectively fulfill its current mandates
- Its regulatory approach is inflexible and insufficient to address both the complex and ever-changing financial marketplace and the challenges to consumer protection
- The regulatory approach taken to some financial products, services and intermediaries is neither coordinated nor consistent with that of other regulators
- Its policy and decision-making process lacks transparency and, in turn, the agency does not require or foster appropriate transparency within the sectors it regulates
- The credibility of the regulatory regime is undermined by the perception that FSCO is unable or unwilling to undertake effective enforcement
- Certain responsibilities are simply inconsistent with FSCO’s primary mandates