The threshold exceptions for litigation created by s.267.5(3) and 267.5(5) of the Insurance Act, supra, each effectively incorporates a causation requirement. In particular, the exceptions do not apply unless the specified impairments exist or occur “as a result of the use or operation of the automobile”. Demonstration of causation therefore is included in the elements a plaintiff must establish to satisfy the threshold for … Read More
– In accidents involving two or more insured automobiles, an insured is entitled to recover for the damages to the insured’s automobile and its contents and for loss of use from the insured’s insurer under s.263(2) of the Insurance Act. -The objective of the regime contemplated by section 263 of the Insurance Act is to … Read More
<Causation Issue in Tort of the Motor Vehicle Accident> – We agreed that if caused by the relevant motor vehicle accident, the plaintiff’s chronic low back pain constitutes a “permanent serious impairment of an important physical, mental or psychological function”, within the meaning of ss.267.5(3) and 267.5(5) of the Insurance Act. – Following our investigation of the totality of medical evidence, motor vehicle accident was relatively modest … Read More
<CAT Assessment Funding> -Section 25(1) of the SABS states reasonable fees charged for preparing an application under s. 45 for a determination of whether the insured person has sustained a catastrophic impairment, including any assessment or examination necessary for that purpose. -The cost of CAT assessments do not come under the limits of s. 18 … Read More
<Insurer’s failure to give proper s.38(8) notice and s.38(11)2 remedies under the SABS> – The Insurer’s Denial Notice or EOB failed to meet the prescribed content requirements of s.38(8) because it failed to provide medical reasons for the insurer’s refusal to pay for a chronic pain assessment. The following arguments have been established successfully: i. The … Read More
-Threshold in an Action against the At-Fault Party- -One of the MVA clients was advised that with soft-tissue injury, he had no case unless there was some visible or objective injury. -He suffered from a chronic pain condition that could continue for an indeterminate time, and our Legal Services asked him to undergo the MRI. … Read More
<Anti-SLAPP Motions & s.137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act> – SLAPP represents Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation which includes defamation claims that limit freedom of expression. Section 137.1 motions address anti-SLAPP motions which are useful for defendants in their defence to the defamation action. The specifics are as follows: <Prevention of Proceedings that Limit Freedom of … Read More
<Successfully out of Minor Injury Guideline as per CT Scan Reports> -One of the MVA clients’ injuries were minor not worth over $3,500.00 three months ago. -However, the updated CT Scan Reports from his family physician convinced the Wawanesa Insurance to pull his injuries OUT OF MINOR INJURY GUIDELINE based upon the following: –1. The … Read More
<Attendant Care Benefits and s.44 Insurer Examinations> -The MVA claimant can apply for an attendant care benefit by submitting an Assessment of Attendant Care Needs (Form 1).And, the Form 1 is, in general, completed by his treating Occupational Therapist.And, the Insurance Company can exercise its right under s. 44 of the SABS to have the … Read More
PO Box 15306 Queensway High PO, Toronto ON M8Y 0B4
Phone: 416-996-9953
Fax: 416-391-6062
Email: ariel@legalservices.one
© Ariel Baek Legal Services