HomeBlog › Blog Article
Blog post summary picture
 Aug 27, 2018 6:00 PM
by Gurpreet Farmaha

The decision in E.E v Aviva Insurance Company, 2018 CanLII 76415 (ON LAT) deals with a request for reconsideration by the respondent of parts of the decision issued by the Tribunal, including the finding that the applicant was entitled to attendant care benefit (including 24 hour supervisory care) alleged to have been provided by his wife, a registered PSW and RPN. At reconsideration, Associate Chair Stephen Jovanovich, agreed with the Tribunals analysis of “incurred”, and found that the test was satisfied under section 3 (7)(e) of the Schedule.

Read more

Accident Benefits, Courts, Legislation / Regulation, News  
  

Blog post summary picture
 Aug 20, 2018 9:00 AM
by Kevin Mitchell

With tension like The Who’s iconic song, the July 17, 2018 loss transfer private arbitration award of Fred Sampliner in State Farm v. Economical dealt primarily with a dispute over...

Read more

Accident Benefits, Loss Transfer / Priority Disputes  
  

Blog post summary picture
 Aug 13, 2018 9:00 AM
by Kevin Mitchell

Akin to the controversy unleashed by Claudius’ usurpation of the Denmark crown, the July 10, 2018 endorsement of Justice Morgan in Royal v. Desjardins , 2018 ONSC 4284, relates to...

Read more

Accident Benefits, Loss Transfer / Priority Disputes  
  

Blog post summary picture
 Mar 27, 2018 3:00 PM
by Mauro D'Agostino

In the decision of The Dominion of Canada General Insurance Company v. Unifund Assurance Company , the Court of Appeal has confirmed that the standard of review applicable in priority...

Read more

Accident Benefits, Arbitrations, Courts  
  

Blog post summary picture
 Mar 21, 2018 1:00 PM
by Alexandra Wilkins

At issue in Applicant and Aviva (2018 Can LII 13190) was whether attendant care was payable for the period of time before the Claimant submitted a Form 1.

The Claimant...

Read more

  

Blog post summary picture
 Jan 17, 2018 9:00 AM
by Samis + Company

In this January 5, 2018 priority dispute private arbitration award of Ken Bialkowski, the main issue was principle dependency; a construct of the definitions contained in s. 3(7)(b) of the SABS. In this case it was argued by RBC the majority contributor was the eldest son; TD’s named insured.  Even if RBC hadn’t admitted dependency upon its named insured (albeit not the greatest contributor), it still had the onus of proof in the dispute since it, at a minimum, was liable to pay benefits, per s. 268(3), based upon mere occupancy. RBC was found to be the priority insurer for both claimants and responsible for TD’s partial indemnity costs and the arbitrator’s account.

Read more

Accident Benefits, Arbitrations, Loss Transfer / Priority Disputes  
  

Blog post summary picture
 Jan 10, 2018 9:00 AM
by Alexandra Wilkins

The Ontario Superior Court recently released a decision finding an injured Plaintiff did not meet threshold on the basis that a “disabling” impairment to the left shoulder was not causally related to the accident.

Read more

  

 Nov 20, 2017 8:00 PM
by Samis + Company

On reconsideration of a decision at the License Appeal Tribunal (LAT), Executive Chair Linda Lamoureux has confirmed that an insurer’s deficient notice under Section 38 of the SABS will have...

Read more

  

 Oct 6, 2017 12:00 PM
by Alexandra Wilkins

In the FSCO Appeal Decision of State Farm and Sabadash (P16-00029), Director’s Delegate Evans conducts a thorough analysis of the key jurisprudence on causation in Canada of the key causation...

Read more

  
1 2 3 4 5 6 »
 
Top of page