In Abyan and Sovereign (FSCO Appeal P17-00068, October 5, 2018), Delegate Evans quashed the Arbitrator's decision and remitted Mr. Abyan's non-MIG claims back to arbitration (likely with a different FSCO Arbitrator as ADR Chambers' contract with FSCO has ended and the original hearing arbitrator is no longer with ADR Chambers).
The constitutional assessment of the MIG was completed in a "factual vacuum". Before concluding that it was discriminatory to limit those suffering from chronic pain to the MIG limit of $3,500, the Arbitrator should have determined whether the claimant suffered from chronic pain and whether the chronic pain was related sequelae to predominantly minor soft tissue injuries.
In Zheng, Cai v. Aviva Insurance Company of Canada, 2018 ONSC 5707, the Divisional Court reverses the unsettling position of FSCO and the LAT that s. 38(8) non-compliance results in the entire claim being taken out of the MIG.
Do you have a smart TV? A smart watch? Maybe a baby monitor? Or how about those fancy smart home cameras and thermometers? Well then… you have an IoT device. They are wireless devices that connect to a network and are capable of transmitting data. They can also communicate and interact over the internet and can be remotely controlled and monitored.
As IoT devices are becoming more widespread and readily accessible, so is the threat to our data.
Canada's new data breach reporting requirements have been overshadowed as of late by GDPR mania. Read on for an overview of the new National legislation and why it matters to Canadian businesses.
The Court of Appeal rejected three grounds of appeal:
1) the trial judge did not err in restricting the scope of testimony of the appellant’s expert;
2) the trial judge did not fail to declare a mistrial due to inappropriate closing submissions by the respondent’s trial counsel; and,
3) the trial judge did not fail to provide sufficient guidance to the jury on the appropriate range for non-pecuniary damages.
In the recent FSCO decision of Aydemir and Aviva (FSCO A14-003170), Jason Frost successfully obtained a dismissal of claims for Catastrophic Impairment, Non-Earner Benefits, 24 hour Attendant Care and related Treatment Plans.
The related legislation has yet to be implemented, but the Ontario Government's Press Release suggests:
- many assessments for non-serious claims will be eliminated;
- new 'standard treatment protocols' will be introduced for "one size fits all' treatment for certain impairments or combinations of impairments;
- cash payouts or settlements are going to be restricted or eliminated; and
- fraudulent claims and systemic fraud will be more aggressively prosecuted by a new "Serious Fraud Office".
In an eagerly anticipated Superior Court decision, Justice Belobaba dismissed a personal injury lawyer’s constitutional challenge to sections 267.5(1) and 280 of the Insurance Act.
This Priority Arbitration decision confirms student loans and lines of credit are a neutral factor when assessing financial dependency.
Arbitrator Musson confirms an assault is an intervening event breaking the chain of causation between the use of the vehicle and the injuries suffered by the Applicant.
In R.H. and TD Insurance Meloche Monnex, 2017 CanLII 1555 (ON LAT), the LAT moves in lock step with previous FSCO and LAT decisions with regards to the harsh remedies for technical violation of section 38.
The Interplay between FSCO and LAT Treatment of Mediation, Limitation Period Exception - Mussa and Aviva Canada, FSCO A16-004253
CERTAS (Stuckless) v. ACE INA, Arbitrator Bialkowski, December 22, 2016