On November 8, 2019 the Ontario Court of Appeal released Tomec v Economical Mutual Insurance Company (2019 ONCA 882). The central issue on the appeal was whether the two-year limitation to start a proceeding following a denial of accident benefits was a “hard” limitation or was subject to the principle of discoverability. The Appellant, Sotira Tomec was seriously injured in a collision in 2008. She applied for and received accident benefits under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule (SABS) from her insurer, Economical including Attendant Care (AC) and Housekeeping (HK). Economical informed the Appellant that she would no longer qualify for...
In A.M. v the Dominion of Canada General Insurance Company, 2019 CanLII58194 (ON LAT), a dispute arose over the A.M, the applicant’s Income Replacement Benefits (IRBs). He was injured on December 21, 2017 when his vehicle was rear-ended. He applied for “no-fault” accident benefits including IRBs under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule (SABS) from his auto insurer, Dominion. Dominion did not dispute that A.M. met the test for IRBs under the SABS. It paid the weekly benefit commencing February 6, 2018 and ongoing. However, this dispute arose over its amount and duration.
On July 19, 2019, the Ontario Court of Appeal released Stegenga v Economical Mutual Insurance Company 201 ONCA 615). The central question on appeal concerned the jurisdiction of the Licence Appeal Tribunal to hear a bad faith claim against Economical for its handling of the plaintiff, Morgan Stegenga’s accident benefits claim under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule [SABS] in light of the 2016 amendments to the SABS.
In the recently released Costs decision, Stewart et al. v. Wood et al. [2019 ONSC 3931] Justice Tausenfreund was required to assess costs and disbursements in a settled personal injury lawsuit.
The Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) recently released its decision in HW and Security National Insurance Company (17-005314/AABS). The central issue in the hearing was whether the Applicant, VHW had suffered a catastrophic impairment (CAT) from her July 14, 2010 rear-end collision.
In Pucci v. Wawanesa (2019 ONSC 1706), a recent Ontario Superior Court of Justice decision, the court weighed in on causation in a catastrophic impairment (CAT) claim. The plaintiff claimant, Brittany Pucci, had been injured in a car accident on June 16, 2013. She suffered various physical injuries and psychological impairments following the accident. Her insurer, Wawanesa paid for her accident benefits including income replacement benefits (IRBs), attendant care (AC) and housekeeping and home maintenance (HKHM) as required under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule (SABS) until her non-CAT limits were exhausted. Following termination, she applied to the Court for declarations...
In F.D. and Allstate Canada, a recent decision of the Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) before Adjudicator Daoud, causation was again a central issue in a claim for determination of catastrophic impairment (CAT). The claimant, F.D. had been rear-ended on August 6, 2014. She suffered extensive soft-tissue injuries, with post-concussion symptoms, anxiety and depression. She sought treatment for ongoing pain and functional limitations, as well as increasing cognitive dysfunction and psychological impairment. Her insurer, Allstate, paid her accident benefits claims up to the non-CAT limits then denied further funding. Mediation failed to resolve the issue between the parties, which led to the...
If you have been seriously injured in a motor vehicle accident, it can be difficult performing routine tasks that you used to take for granted. You may feel fatigued, frustrated and overwhelmed. At the same time your insurance company will be pressuring you to return to work and resume your daily activities.
In Aviva Canada Inc. v. Sleep(FSCO Appeal P17-00034), Director’s Delegate Murray was required to review an arbitration decision concerning the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule (SABS). In the decision, Arbitrator Anschell found that the Respondent, Mr. Sleep had sustained injuries from a March 26, 2014 collision that exceeded the definition of “Minor Injury” under the MIG.
One of the most controversial (and potentially unconstitutional) aspects of the Ontario government’s 2019 budget released on April 11, is the proposed repeal of the Proceedings Against the Crown Act. This Act has been in force for 56 years and establishes the framework for citizens to sue the government. In its place, the Ford Conservatives will enact the Crown Liability and Proceedings Act. The proposed Act will severely limit the circumstances under which a plaintiff can pursue a lawsuit against the government whileintroducing significant additional procedural hurdles. Provided that the government is deemed to have acted in “good faith”, the...