Reasons for judgment were released today by the BC Supreme Court, Victoria Registry, dismissing an injury claim against involving an unidentified motorist because the Plaintiff had, due to injuries, no recollection of the collision and no evidence to establish driver negligence.
Read the rest of entry »
Reasons for judgment were published today by the BC Court of Appeal denying a Plaintiff access to a pool of money intended to compensate people injured at the hands of uninsured motorists.
Insured entitled to coverage under Alberta Standard Automobile Policy SPF # 1 – SEF No. 44 Family Protection Endorsement following accident involving an unidentified vehicle.
Court not required to determine whether plaintiff’s injuries meet prescribed threshold for non-pecuniary general damages and health care costs under s. 267.5(15) of the Insurance Act if amount awarded for pain and suffering is zero. This was the ruling in Grajqevci v. Rustaie,  O.J. No. 1995, 2017 ONSC 2535, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, April 24, 2017.
Sections 267.5(1) and 280 of the Insurance Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. I.8, do not violate sections 15 and 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This was the ruling in Campisi v. Ontario (Attorney General),  O.J. No. 2777, 2017 ONSC 2884, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, May 31, 2017.
Two recent decisions from the Financial Services Commission of Ontario (FSCO) have dealt with determining whether or not the Applicants were involved in an “accident” as defined in section 3(1) of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule – Effective September 1, 2010 (SABS). In one case, Miles Stolove was helping a friend move things from a storage facility when one of the large, metal storage facility garage doors fell on him. In the other, Ronalee Porter had been shopping at a nursery, loaded her car with her purchases and was in the process of returning the cart to the corral when an employee came over to take the cart from her. As she turned to go back to her vehicle, with the car fob in her hand, she was caught up in some strapping on the ground and fell. The two arbitrators that heard these cases came to the same conclusion: neither applicant had proven that the injuries they sustained were directly caused by the use or operation of an automobile.
The Ontario Court of Appeal, in Aviva Insurance Company of Canada v. McKeown, 2017 ONCA 563 (CanLII) determined an insurer is not required to provide a “justification” to compel an applicant for benefits to attend an examination under oath (EUO) pursuant to subsection 33(2) of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.
Reasons for judgment were published by the BC Supreme Court, Vernon Registry, confirming that an order for double costs does not also mean a party is entitled to double disbursements.
Examinations for Discovery are normal. They occur in nearly every civil action (personal injury, or not), in Ontario. This is an opportunity for the personal injury lawyer to ask the Defendant at fault driver, or insurance adjuster a series of questions which are answered under oath. The lawyer will ask the at fault party some very simple questions, along with some more pointed questions in order to get more evidence about the case at hand.
Vehicle damage arising from a lessee’s arson does not fall within the conversion exclusion clause in Division 5 of the ICBC Autoplan Optional Policy, and an innocent lessor may accordingly be entitled to coverage. This is the ruling in CIT Financial Ltd. v. Insurance Corporation of British Columbia, 2017 BCJ No 753, 2017 BCSC 641, British Columbia Supreme Court, April 20, 2017.
Western Medical Assessments (WMA) provides expert medical assessment services to insurance companies, lawyers (both defense and plaintiff) and employers. Our reputation as one of Canada’s most respected disability assessment companies is premised on our trusted network of thousands of clinical experts — mostly specialists — across all medical disciplines (physical and psychological). We’ve been entrusted to complete 63,000 independent medical examinations (IMEs) as our clients appreciate our medical direction, evidence-based medical opinions and complete independence from any ethical conflicts of interest.