The most widely read magazine for Canadian lawyers
Issue link: https://digital.canadianlawyermag.com/i/50811
of Rights and Freedoms is only a couple pages long but a simple auto insurance claim form in Ontario is like a book written in fine print. I consider it an impairment to access to justice." Then there is the claims process aimed at providing compensation for injured people according to the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule, a regulation under Ontario's Insurance Act. In Ontario, motor vehicle claims have two cases: a no-fault case against one's own insurance company, and a tort case against the person and/or insurance company of the driver who may have caused the accident. "Sometimes there's an accident benefit claim and no tort claim, sometimes there's a tort claim and no accident benefits claim, sometimes there's both an accident benefits claim and a tort claim," says Goldfinger. "It all depends on the facts of the case and the extent of the injuries. Lawyers really have to be on their game to stay on top of all the changes being made and the possibilities in each case, which can involve different sets of laws from different periods of time." To help improve the situation, the OTLA last year recommended one of two options to the Ontario government: the elimination of the threshold or the cutting in half of the pain and suffering deductible to $15,000. Instead, the government chose to remove the $15,000 deductible in fatality claims, an apparent cost-saving measure that Orlando calls "pretty minor." He blames the government's resistance to changing the no-fault deductible on the lobbying power of the Insurance Bureau of Canada, which represents private home, car, and business insurers that control some 95 per cent of the national property and casualty market. They have a total premium base of $39 billion, roughly half of which is derived from automobile insurance. "[The IBC] says it is losing money so it wants to pay less," says Orlando. "But the result is the gradual erosion of no-fault rights in Ontario without a return of the right of innocent victims to pursue claims in court." Neither the IBC nor the Financial Services Commission of Ontario, an arm's-length agency of the Ministry of Finance that regulates automobile insurance in the province, returned calls to discuss those claims. Personal injury lawyers and anti-no-fault coalitions Annotated Commercial General Liability Policy business liability policy No other resource offers this scope of up-to-date case law interpreting Canada's most widely used Prepare for the impact of the latest decisions! Updated regularly with leading case law and commentary, this is the best source to keep you on top of the changes and legal developments in the industry as well as their impact on Canadian insurers, brokers and policyholders. ORDER your copy today Looseleaf & binders (2) • $280 Releases invoiced separately (1-2/yr) • P/C 0437030000 ISBN 0-88804-240-X Annotated Commercial and General Liability Policy provides a thorough, yet practical analysis of the IBC Form 2100 CGL "occurrence" policy on a clause-by-clause basis. Each section of the policy includes a historical overview, scholarly commentary, analysis and the most up-to-date case law from the insurer's and policyholder's perspective. across Canada had pinned their hopes for significant changes in deductibles on the cases of Peari Morrow and Brea Pederson in Alberta, where the no-fault model in regards to pain and suffering is skewed to the right to sue. They argued the cap on auto insurance payouts for soft-tissue injuries they sustained in separate car crashes in 2004 and 2005 were unconstitutional. A backdrop to the case was a study carried out for the Alberta branch of the Canadian Bar Association that found auto insurers would continue to make money even if the $4,000 cap was removed. "This report supports our view that the cap denies Albertans the right to access justice [and that] even with no cap, the auto insurance industry would still earn reasonable profits," said McCuaig Desrochers LLP's Tom Achtymichuk, a past president of the CBA in Alberta, at the time. He also noted the study showed "the insurance industry was profitable and that claims were not out of control prior to introduction of the cap [in 2004]." Those hopes were dashed on Dec. For a 30-day, no-risk evaluation call: 1.800.565.6967 CL0210 Canada Law Book is a Division of The Cartwright Group Ltd. Prices subject to change without notice, to applicable taxes and shipping & handling. 32 FEBRU AR Y 2010 www. C ANADIAN Law ye rmag.com 16, 2009, when the Supreme Court of Canada announced it would not hear an appeal of an Alberta Court of Appeal ruling from last June that overturned a lower court decision to remove the cap and award Morrow and Pederson general Mark G. Lichty and Marcus B. S nowden