• homeslide-220513-04 FAIR – supporting auto accident victims through advocacy and education
  • homeslide-220513-03 FAIR – supporting auto accident victims through advocacy and education
  • homeslide-220513-02 FAIR – supporting auto accident victims through advocacy and education
  • homeslide-220513-01b FAIR – supporting auto accident victims through advocacy and education

The Laywers

‘FAIR – supporting auto accident victims through advocacy and education’

The information provided below is not legal advice, and it may not apply in every situation. FAIR is not a legal service and we do not recommend particular lawyers or firms. We do not provide legal advice. This page is for information purposes only.


We are hearing about more and more cases where the time limitations for filing have lapsed due to a failure by a plaintiff’s legal representative to meet deadlines. Claimants should stay informed of what is happening with their files and forms and ask the questions about filing dates and limitations. Please see some of the decisions and articles listed at the bottom of this page for details

More information on choosing a lawyer or if you have issues with your legal bill here.


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.




Contingency fee proposals could hurt modest claimants

A contingency fee cap could hamper access to justice for accident victims with smaller claims, Barrie personal injury lawyer Steve Rastin tells Law Times.

The article discusses the Law Society of Upper Canada’s (LSUC) Advertising and Fee Arrangements Issues Working Group, which recently released a set of proposals for simplifying contingency fee arrangements.


Comments are closed.

How lawyers and car insurers get away with highway robbery: Cohn

The endless rip-off in car insurance rates is a never-ending tale of Ontario the good versus Ontario the bad.

We are among the best drivers on the continent, with the lowest accident rates and injury statistics. That’s the good news for nearly 10 million passengers and drivers on our roads.


Comments are closed.

Lawyer Referral Fees – New rules mean added bureaucracy?

Some personal injury lawyers are worried the Law Society of Upper Canada’s new referral fee rules have added an unnecessary layer of bureaucracy for boutique firms and their clients.


Comments are closed.

Contingent Fees, Portfolio Risk and Competition – Calls for Reform

In theory, contingent fee pricing is an elegant way of providing access to justice at a fair and reasonable price. In this column, I try to look at both theory and practice and also at prospects for reform.


Comments are closed.

Aviva Insurance Company of Canada v. McKeown, 2017 ONCA 563 DATE: 20170704 DOCKET: C62809

A.             OVERVIEW

[1]        This appeal is about the nature of the notice an insurer must give in order to exercise its statutory right to examine under oath an applicant who has claimed benefits under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule (“SABS”), O. Reg. 34/10, a regulation under the Insurance ActR.S.O. 1990, c. I.8. Section 33 (2) of the SABS provides that an applicant for SABS benefits “shall submit to an examination under oath” if requested by the insurer. Section 33 (4) 3 requires an insurer to give the applicant reasonable advance notice of the “reason or reasons for the examination.”

[2]        Six applicants for benefits demanded Aviva Insurance Company of Canada provide a “reason” in the sense of a “justification” for its request that they attend examinations under oath. Aviva brought an application in the Superior Court for a declaration that a justification was not required to compel a person claiming statutory accident benefits to attend at an examination under oath, and for an order compelling the six applicants to attend examinations.

[3]        The application judge dismissed the application and issued a declaration that an insurer must provide a “justification” to compel an applicant for benefits to attend an examination under oath if the insurer requests one pursuant to s. 33(2) of the SABS. She denied Aviva’s request for an order that each of the six applicants for benefits attend for an examination under oath.

[4]        Aviva appeals, but only in respect of three of the six respondents to the application. I would allow the appeal, set aside the application judge’s declaration, and replace it with the declaration that an insurer is not required to provide a justification for its request that the applicant attend an examination under oath. I would grant an order that each of the three respondents to the appeal attend an examination under oath.

Comments are closed.