The most widely read magazine for Canadian lawyers
Issue link: https://digital.canadianlawyermag.com/i/1161314
FEATURE 22 www.lawtimesnews.com FOCUS ON PERSONAL INJURY inform the Stegengas that Morgan's injury may qualify as a catastrophic impairment; nor did it investigate her condition, have her medically assessed, assign a case manager for her care and rehabilitation or respond to their requests for authorization of a neurologic psychoeducational assessment. Stegengav included "56 particulars" of Economical's alleged breaches in her statement of claim, states the Court of Appeal decision by Justice Benjamin Zarnett. At the Superior Court stage, Economical moved to strike Stegenga's statement of claim under rule 21, asking the court to determine if it was barred by s. 280. Section 280(1) of the Insurance Act says: "This section applies with respect to the resolution of disputes in respect of an insured person's entitlement to statutory accident benefits or in respect of the amount of statutory accident benefits to which an insured person is entitled." Section 280(2) says these disputes are in the LAT's jurisdiction. Superior Court Justice James Ramsay framed the question as "whether a claim for negligent, fraudulent or bad faith administration of accident benefits is a claim falling within s. 280(1)." He found the case was essentially about accident benefits, fell within s. 280 and should be dealt with in the LAT system. Stegenga's appeal focused on Economical's bad faith and argued that the duty of good faith "is independent of and in addition" to its duty to pay the benefits, the decision states. Stegenga said the LAT is unable to award aggravated, exemplary or punitive damages and argued that giving the LAT exclusive jurisdiction "effectively insulates" insurance companies from accountability when they breach their good faith duty. Zarnett ruled the Superior Court had made the correct decision that "at their core" the facts of Stegenga's claim were essentially about providing, withholding and the administration of her accident benefits. "This was an attempt by the personal injury plaintiff 's lawyers to try to preserve that bad faith cause of action and pursue it in court. This just firmly shuts the door on the potential to recover for bad faith in a standalone action." Kevin Adams, Rogers Partners LLP Delays plaguing personal injury class actions Law Commission report on class actions indicates widespread frustration with slothful court system THE LAW Commission of Ontario recently released a report evaluating the effectiveness of the Class Proceedings Act and found that delays are plaguing the process. "The biggest problem in litigation, both personal injury and class action, is delay," says Darcy Merkur, a personal injury lawyer and partner at Thomson Rogers Lawyers Delays are a problem in class actions according to "virtually everyone" the LCO con- sulted, said the report. The LCO recommends a one-year deadline for scheduling certification motion and filing plaintiff motion material, an automatic dismissal and costs provision for plaintiff firms that waste time and amend- ments to enhance case-management authority. Delays are a problem that span all practice areas, require judicial resources and, Merkur says, speeding up certification is just chapter one of the process. "Now all that's good. It doesn't solve the problem of realistic- ally having to tell a representative plaintiff that you can realistically expect a defendant who wants to delay and dispute everything — it'll