• 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 – supporting auto accident victims through advocacy and education

News and Views

OTLA: Updated study shows Ontario auto insurance is “fundamentally broken”

TORONTO, Oct. 15, 2015 /CNW/ – An updated study released today provides alarming new data on auto insurance in Ontario.

The study, conducted by York University Schulich School of Business Professors Fred Lazar and Eli Prisman, reveals that consumers likely overpaid by $1.5 billion in the last two years alone. This includes overpayments of $700 million (or about $100 for each insurance policy) in 2014 on top of the $840 million ($120 per policy) in 2013.


Read: Lazar Report October 2015

Orillia woman involved in serious collision slams province’s planned changes to insurance industry

An Orillia woman who was in a car crash seven years ago that left her in a coma worries changes to the auto-insurance industry will have devastating effects.

Tammy Kirkwood said the province’s plan to reduce auto-insurance benefits that was passed as part of the budget earlier this year will severely hurt crash victims requiring extensive care.

“These benefits should not be called benefits; they are resources and necessary to regain your whole person and get on track,” she said.

“We are mandated to purchase auto insurance to drive a car, yet there is nothing in place to mandate the insurers to uphold the policy we have to purchase.”


Starting off the License Appeal Tribunal for MVA victims – already slanted to favor auto insurers?

The LAT update says “The Advisory Committee members represent groups that have an interest in the areas of law, business, government, consumer groups and the insurance industry” but the reality is that the Committee is composed of insurer defence lawyers and legal experts and consultants without any presence of consumers or MVA victims or those who represent them. This is unacceptable when such uneven and unfair weighting of the Committee appears to favour Ontario’s insurance industry while totally ignoring Ontario’s consumers and MVA victims.  http://www.slasto.gov.on.ca/en/Documents/What%20New-EN/AIDRS%20Project%20Update%20-%20FSCO%20Forums%20-%20EN.pdf

FAIR letter to the Attorney General re LAT advisory panel Sept 30 2015

Auto Insurance Dispute Resolution System (AIDRS) Project Update

Transfer of Automobile Insurance Dispute Resolution System The Government announced in the 2014 Budget a series of auto insurance reforms, one of which was the transformation of the Auto Insurance Dispute Resolution System and its transfer to the Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT), an adjudicative tribunal within the Safety, Licensing Appeals and Standards Tribunals Ontario (SLASTO) cluster. In the 2015 Budget, the Government announced the new Auto Insurance Dispute Resolution System at LAT will begin accepting applications on April 1, 2016.


Common Traffic Impairments (CTI) – what do stakeholders think about the latest plan for auto insurance coverage levels


FAIR response to the Draft Superindendent’s Common Traffic Impairment (CTI) Guideline Sept 11 2015


ABC CTI submission

ORA Response to Draft Superintendent’s CTI Guideline (1)

OPA Sept 11 2015 Submission re CTI Guideline Sept 11, 2015 SENT

Rehab First Submission-Superintendent’s CTI Implementation Proposal September 2015

CHANGES TO Catastrophic impairment – important new legislation coming into effect June 1, 2016


MVA victims in Ontario are long way away from being made whole after making a claim that is denied

Restitutio ad integrum (To be made whole again)

              In a legal sense“damages” refers to monetary compensation that is claimed by a person or awarded by a court in a civil action to a person who has been injured or suffered loss because of the wrongful conduct of another party.
        “The general principles underlying our system of damages suggest that a plaintiff should receive full and fair                 compensation, calculated to place him or her in the same position as he or she would have been in had the tort not been committed, insofar as this can be achieved by a monetary award”.
              “This principle suggests that in calculating damages under the pecuniary heads, the measure of the damages should be the plaintiff’s actual loss.”
                Ratych v. Bloomer, (1990) 1 S.C.R. 940 at para. 71, per McLachlin J. – see also Livingstone v. Raywards Coal Co.                 (1911) A.C. 301 at 307 (P.C.).

FAIR response to the Final Report of the Minor Injury Treatment Protocol Project

With tens of thousands of Ontarians injured each year in auto accidents, and $2,800,000.00 to work with it is unfortunate that the Panel chose to interview a mere 11 MVA victims about their claims experience when designing a system to serve that very group of individuals. It certainly doesn’t speak to a focus on the injured person as the title suggests. The ill-conceived Minor Injury Guideline was designed as an interim measure in 2010 while this evidence-based treatment protocol was developed so with 5 years of history to review, surely the victim sample of recovery results, experiences and/or suggestions should have included a larger group of participants to keep the study relative to the estimated 300,000 MVA injury claims that have been made since the 2010 introduction of the MIG? http://www.fsco.gov.on.ca/en/auto/Pages/minor-injury-treatment-protocol.aspx

FAIR response to the Final Report of the Minor Injury Treatment Protocol Project July 31 2015


ORA Response to the Minor Injury Treatment Protocol Final Report

OPA response to Report on Common Traffic Injuries , July 31, 2015

Stakeholders respond to recent Government proposal to slash auto insurance benefits AGAIN!

FAIR submission to Minister of Finance regarding SABS June 2015

We ask that our government push the pause button on the proposed changes and review the information that has recently been put in front of them in regards to insurer profits. There needs to be better information about victim recovery post the 2010 reductions and whether Ontario‟s insurers deserved to get those reductions in 2010 and profit billions on the backs of the injured. It may be the time to review whether Ontario should continue with the present private industry No-Fault coverage going forward. It isn‟t working for victims and they are the half of the equation that counts and the half that is being left without the resources and tools for recovery.

ORA Submission re Budget 2015

We will undoubtedly see fellow Ontarians whose horrific crashes result in quadriplegia, severe brain injuries and amputations live the rest of their lives with little to no dignity. The impact of choosing between help to complete daily activities and rehabilitation to reduce the need for help in the future is magnified tenfold in this population. The future of these individuals’ children, wives, husbands or parents will be forever changed as they have to rededicate their lives to becoming full time caregivers in light of deep cuts to the benefits. We urge decision makers to spend a day with a catastrophically injured individual in order to understand the impact of the proposed cuts.

OTLA comment Proposed SABS Changes June 29 2015

We have also heard government officials suggest that Ontario’s costs are out of control compared to other provinces. Again, this is a very misleading statement. For example, here in Ontario, insurers rely heavily on the abusive practice of subjecting as many as 50 per cent of all injured accident victims to excessive medical assessments for the purpose of denying their claims. It is not at all uncommon for those assessment costs to vastly outstrip the actual treatment dollars. To add insult to injury, insurance companies count all these assessments broadly as “treatment” and then complain that our overall treatment costs are high, and that Ontario victims are more needy than people elsewhere.

OPA re Catastrophic Impairment Criteria June 29, 2015 SENT

Government’s stated intentions vs unintended consequences The government has stated that it intends to “Update the definition of catastrophic impairment (CAT) to reflect the most up to date medical information and knowledge”. While it is reasonable to strive to incorporate relevant new medical information, “updating” must provide real improvement rather than incorporating newer, but more flawed and discriminatory methods.

Petition to Remove the Minor Injury Guideline

To:       The Legislative Assembly of Ontario

Where the Ontario Regulation 347/13 makes four changes to the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule (SABS) should be removed, as it puts at risk the well-being of individuals jeopardizing their optimal recovery, health, and lifestyle.

We the Undersigned Petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as Follows:

Ontario Regulation 347/13 has made four changes to the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule (SABS), also known as Ontario Regulation 34/10 effective Feb 1, 2014. These regulations have considerably reduced the dollar amounts allocated for patients receiving assessments and treatment following a motor vehicle accident. Implementation of Section 18 (1) and Section 18 (2); The Minor Injury Guideline in the new Ontario Legislation for Accident Benefits Coverage, which came into effect September 1, 2010 was a direct result of recommendations made by the Insurance Industry, while recommendations made by the Ontario Chiropractic Association and Canadian Society of Chiropractic Evaluators was disregarded.