The Toronto Star reports on the difficulties faced by victims of medical malpractice, whose cases are fought tooth and nail by the Canadian Medical Protective Association - essentially an insurance company that refuses to consider settling most cases regardless of merit. Victims must go to great expense and risk to try to prove their cases in court while the doctor's defence and any court award is paid for by the CMPA. What most citizens don't know is that as a result of agreements with the government, 95% of the premium cost for malpractice insurance is paid for by Ontario taxpayers. Victims are subsidizing the defence of doctors who harmed them! Plaintiffs lawyers are calling on the province to subject the CPMA to public scrutiny to make sure that the public interest is served. See Story

The Liberal government continues to show favouritism to the insurance industry in its latest budget, by accelerating tax cuts that directly affect "big insurance" while refusing to follow through on promises to help the poorest in society, such as ending the clawback of the federal benefits for Ontario's poorest children - not to mention the ongoing delisting of services covered by OHIP, the refusal to provide more assistance to families struggling with the financial burdens of treating and caring for autistic chidren (should we mention their ongoing battle in the courts to defeat a court judgment that actually helps these familes?). We almost forgot - further reforms that take away protections for injured automobile accident victims while the billions keep pouring in to the big insurers. See story about criticism of McGuinty

Last year we reported that the auto insurance sector in Canada reported record multi-billion dollar profits while changes brought in by the Conservative government, and maintained by the Liberal government (further destroying victim's entitlements) had yet to be felt. Well this year we are disgusted to announce that profits of this sector could exceed $6 BILLION DOLLARS for 2005. We didn't hear much from the insurance industry about these results (no doubt they are ashamed and don't want to attract attention). With DACs now gone injured victims simply are not going to get treatment on a timely basis, and will suffer much more. The past two years have seen insurance profits in excess of $10 BILLION DOLLARS - surely there is money available to help the injured. See article

One of Ontario's largest automobile insurers, Aviva, has introduced a "new program" that promises to cut paperwork and interference by insurance adjusters as long as the victim goes to one of Aviva's "medical partners". They have apparently partnered with a number of clinics who will provide the treatment. Of course, such clinics will likely subscribe to the view that all soft tissue injuries resolve within days or weeks, and anyone not recovered will no doubt be deemed a fraud or malingerer. While the obvious conflict of interest is glaring, your Ontario Financial Services Commission apparently sees nothing wrong with this - par for the course for McGuinty and company. Why is that insurers like Aviva bombard victims with excessive paperwork and interference by adjusters in the first place? Victims should be able access quality health care practitioners that will put their well being above that of an insurance company - that can only be accomplished by complete independence. See story in Toronto Star

The President of the Ontario Trial Lawyers Association, Russ Howe, was quoted in the Thompson's World Insurance News, pointing out the flaws with the current insurance scheme for auto accidents, known as "Bill 198". The current law imposes a drastic complex threshold, and to further add insult to injury, reduces pain and suffering compensation by a deductible of $30,000 - all so insurers can add even more to their already overloaded profit levels. He notes this was a Tory plan, and the Liberals have an opportunity to fix this injustice. Though we are now almost two years since the Liberals were elected, and so far there is no sign that they are prepared to do what is only right. Link to article.

The McGuinty Liberals continue their rollback of victims rights with the elimination of the Designated Assessment Centres as a method of obtaining neutral medical opinions on benefit and treatment entitlement issues. The draft regulations are now available at the Financial Services Commission website. The government has made it clear that they will not consider any significant changes to the proposed regulation - which will essentially give the insurers free reign to have their hired guns examine injury victims and deny benefits at will, forcing victims to pursue lengthy and costly appeal procedures for the mere hope of getting some treatments paid for (the same Liberals who have cut chiropractors and physiotherapists entirely from OHIP coverage). See James Daw's column in the Toronto Star .... meanwhile despite the wholesale assault on innocent victims, Ontario motorists still pay far more than B.C. residents (who are permitted to sue for all injury related losses without "thresholds" or deductibles), of course the difference being billion dollar profits that the private insurers need to support their lobbying efforts for even more restrictions on the victims. See Toronto Star story.... July 27, 2005 - update read commentary from president of DAC association

The Ontario Court of Appeal released a ground breaking decision that struck down a portion of the provincial Employment Standards Act that denied severance pay to employees who can no longer return to work because of accident or injury. The law allowed employers to escape severance obligations where the relationship was "frustrated" by the employee's disability. The court recognized that persons suffering disability are not necessarly incapable of any kind of employment, and should be treated the same as other employees when a termination occurs. It should be noted that "severance pay" applies only to those with at least 5 years of service, and work for a company whose payroll exceeds 2.5 million. However, it is unknown how this ruling will affect other aspects of employment law such as notice pay provisions under the Act, and the common law right to sue for wrongful dismissal. See story in the Star

In the face of obscene profits by auto insurers, the Consumers Association of Canada called on the McGuinty government to eliminate the $30,000 deductible inflicted on innocent accident victims who have suffered severe permanent injuries. It is pointed out that in British Columbia there is no such deductible, yet premiums have remained stable for years. It should be noted that most of the results over the past couple of years (record profits) deal with older cases where a $15,000 deductible applied - insurers have made disgustingly huge profits without even the impact of this greater deductible being felt - what will they make next year? In the face of this horror, all Finance Minister Sorbara can say is that he is not aware over outrage of the public, and is planning more measures to lower premiums (which in Liberal-speak can only mean yet another assault on the innocent). Link to press release by Consumers Association

The Toronto Star reports on continuing huge profits for the automobile insurance companies which should come as no surprise after government after government have cut injured victims' rights down to nothing. One of the reasons for fewer claims? Consumer fear. Fear of absurd and unjust premium hikes for the audacity of making a claim that you bought insurance for in the first place. According to the president of ING "the stars have all aligned in 2004" - it seems not only the government, but the entire universe is backing the car insurance industry now? No doubt they can use those huge profits to contribute to the political campaigns of the Liberals and Conservatives who continue to demonstrate an astounding unwillingness to defend the rights of the people of the province. Link to story. See also story from CTV news - profits of $4.2 billion - 150% increase over last year's record profits.....while the victims suffer in pain and poverty.......link

Although at iaminjured, we are not in the "entertainment" business, a recent lawsuit issued by Britney Spears relating to the costs of tour cancellation caused by a knee injury last year illustrate a very important point for anyone buying insurance to cover health related matters, whether it is travel insurance, disability insurance or medical insurance. Spears had insured for close to $10million dollars through a group of British and French insurance companies, but none have paid anything since her tour-ending injury last year. The reason? They say she failed to disclose a history of prior surgery on the subject knee some five years before. Non-disclosure of medical information can be grounds to completely void an insurance policy - will Britney prevail? only time will tell. Link to story

An accounting report commissioned by the DAC association to assess the Liberal's plan to eliminate the Designated Assessment Centres indicates that because of the increased costs generated by the additional mediations and arbitrations that will probably occur, overall costs for the insurance claim system will increase by millions. The Liberals had earlier promised that this proposal, that appears to be a fait accompli would save millions and help reduce insurance costs. This report contradicts the government's claims. Click here for link to copy of report

The Ontario government claims to have successfully obtained the 10% reduction in auto insurance premiums that were promised in the last election campaign, but completely ignore the toll caused by punishing new regulations affecting accident victims, as well as the fact that many drivers with clean driving records have been hit with huge insurance increases. Greg Sorbara, the Finance Minister promises even further premium reduction - which from past experience can only mean greater disaster for innocent victims of automobile accidents. The government should be reminded that its purpose is to serve individual human beings, and not to accomplish statistical sleight of hand at the expense of the citizens of the province. See article in Toronto Sun

The Ontario government has quietly introduced a draft regulation to entirely eliminate the Designated Assessment Centres that are used to provide medical opinions on the rights to treatment and benefits for auto injury victims. Claiming they centres are too costly, the reality for many victims is that the DACs were the only means of accessing treatment on a reasonably timely basis. While the quality of the various DACs is mixed, the new "system" means that insurers can still have their own doctors offer opinions (almost all of the time against the victim) while the victim - usually without resources - will not be able to afford to pay doctors the cost of writing comprehensive reports. Victims will be left with pursuing mediation (usually useless unless the victim is willing to sign away all of their rights for a pittance) and costly arbitration or lawsuits. Insurers know that most victims cannot afford to take such steps for the cost of course of physiotherapy or chiropractic care, and thus will have to suffer in greater pain. At a time when insurers are raking in billions in profits, the cost of the DACs represents only about 1% of the total claims expenses. Once again, McGuinty proves himself a good friend to the insurance industry. See link to news brief...Update Jan/05......see column in Toronto Star about public support for continuation of DAC's

Pharmaceutical company Merck has pulled Vioxx from store shelves in the wake of a study that shows an increased chance of suffering a heart attack or stroke by users. Vioxx has been prescribed for arthritis, but it is also widely used for those who suffer chronic pain from automobile accidents and work accidents. Those who have been prescribed this medication should contact their physician to explore alternative treatments or medications. Link to story

The Law Society of Upper Canada, the organization that regulates and licenses Ontario lawyers has voted to accept responsibility to regulate paralegals in Ontario. The legislation and rules are yet to be drafted, but it is anticipated that paralegals will now have to register, establish their qualifications, and carry liability insurance. They would also be subject to discipline proceedings. Paralegals are individuals who are not lawyers, but are permitted to perform very limited legal-type work, such as small claims court cases, workers compensation and other similar matters. As the field is completely unregulated, anyone can call themselves a paralegal and open for business no matter how inexperienced or lacking in knowledge about the particular field. Consumers should be aware that if they hire a paralegal who conducts their case in a negligent manner, there may be no insurance or compensation to cover any losses. Provincial regulation is supposed to provide better protection for consumers. See story in Toronto Star

On December 1, 2004, the Ontario Court of Appeal will hear an appeal in the case of Lowe v Guarantee Co. which deals with the rights of accident victims to sue the provincially approved Designated Assessment Centres for conduct that negatively impacts on the victims. DAC's are supposed to be neutral medical evaluators for car accidents, though the impartiality of some of the doctors doing such assessments has been questioned before. An attempt to sue a DAC was thrown at the Ontario Superior Court on numerous grounds, including the fact that as part of the adjudication process for no-fault benefit claims, they were entitled to the same immunity granted to a witness in a court trial. An earlier decision, Future Health v Cividino, had held that such a claim may be possible. The Court of Appeal will now have to rule on whether accident victims will have such a right, where improper or inappropriate conduct leads to opinions that can have severe financial and medical effects on injured persons.

The Toronto Star reports that property and casualty insurance companies (which includes automobile insurance) are making billion dollar profits this year. While the rights of accident victims have been steadily eroded and strangled by government restrictions and regulations, responding to the insurance companies "crying wolf", the reality is that auto insurance has long been profitable, and the current results show that even the insurance industry's creative accounting cannot hide the magnitude of the wealth they take away from consumers and victims. Many people who suffer chronic pain, lost earning ability, difficulties managing their day to day lives - through no fault of their own - are being told that the law does not allow them fair - or any - compensation. They are sacrificed in the name of large bonuses for insurance executives. We wait - in vain it seems - for our politicians to start standing up for the people of this province. Link to Toronto Star story. ...update: McGuinty promising further rate cuts.... the Globe and Mail reports on September 30, 2004 that McGuinty and has finance minister continue to promise further "rate cuts" to auto insurance.....no details yet on their latest plans to hurt innocent victims of car accidents. However, based on past experience, this cannot be good news. Link to Globe and Mail story

The Court of Appeal today released a ruling in the case of Simison v. Catlyn, which involved an issue of a passenger in a stolen vehicle who suffered severe closed head injuries. The standard policy of insurance generally permits claims caused by an uninsured driver to be made against one's own insurer in order that some damages can be recovered by the victim. A confusing exclusion clause in the policy however was interpreted as preventing a passenger in any vehicle operated without the owner's consent from pursuing a damages claim against the person's own insurer. Parents should be aware that if their teenage children go along on a joyride with friends in a stolen vehicle and suffer catastrophic injuries, they may be deprived of receiving compensation, and be limited only to medical expense coverage under the no-fault part of the policy. Link to Court Decision

The CBC reports on a growing health problem among younger workers, particularly those employed in factory environments. Compensation boards are seeing a substantial increase in hearing loss claims as a result of exposure in increasingly noisy work environments. Previously such claims generally appeared in older workers, but the percentage is increasing among younger persons. It is noted that many workers and their employers don't take adequate steps to protect their hearing. Link to story

The Ontario Ministry of Finance has released a discussion paper with a view to implementing no-fault insurance packages that can be customized depending on the needs of the purchaser. One example pertains to those who already have coverage from their employment for disability and medical expenses, and don't want to pay for the standard auto coverage that includes these items. However many problems can stem from this type of approach as most consumers may not be aware of what they already have, or the conditions attached to those other benefits. Further, medical coverage through work often ends when a person is injured and is no longer actively at work, or their job is terminated. Failure to purchase the necessary "nofault" coverage will mean that person will not be able to access any treatment other than out of their own pocket - as even OHIP has won't cover physiotherapy or chiropractic costs anymore. Such a system will likely increase the burden on agents who will bear the brunt of dissatisfied accident victims that may not have understood the consequences of what insurance product they purchased. The Liberals, like their Tory predecessors, seem intent on making the auto insurance system ever more complex and difficult for the injured victim to deal with. Link to discussion paper; see also link to Toronto Star story of August 17, 2004...Update...Sep 28, 2004....Minister of Finance announces customization to be introduced early next year.....Link to Globe and Mail Story

Hamlton area chiropractors recently met with local MPP Jennifer Mossop along with patients to present a petition against the recent government decision to eliminate OHIP funding for chiropractic treatment. It was noted that the decision came without any warning, nor has there been much communication from the government as to why this decision was made, other than vague references to "financial" reasons and "tough choices". Past government consultations had confirmed that chiropractic treatment was a very cost effective way of dealing with a number of health problems, and the government's decision will likely lead to increased health care costs as patients will have no choice but to access higher cost doctors and hospitals to seek relief from debilitating pain.MPP Mossop suggested that the delisting was "temporary" until the Liberals get their "financial house in order" - though as a backbench MPP, it is unlikely that she is promising anything of substance. Link to story in Stoney Creek News.

The Toronto Star reports on the case of a mentally ill man who may be deprived of needed and cost-effective help as a result of the decisions of bureaucrats who implement the Ontario Disability Support Plan. The man who responded significantly well while a patient at a retirement home had his benefits reduced because of the "benefits" offered by the home, leading to the absurd result that he can no longer affort to remain there, and will likely end up on the streets - and further hospitalizations, which will no doubt cost the province much more than the reduction in the already modest monthly ODSP benefit. He currently has an appeal pending at the Social Benefits Tribunal but does not hold out much hope for a favourable result. Link to story

An article on the Canadian Occupational Safety website provides an example of a case where a worker was denied benefits at the Board level for a claim for lung cancer caused by occupational exposure, and was compelled to go the Tribunal level in order to obtain benefits. The article's author is a consultant who was retained by the employer, but whose investigations determined that the research used by the Board in the initial decision and appeal levels was 15 years out of date. The research of the consultant was not provided to the Tribunal, but the panel did rule in the workers' favour once the employer withdrew from the process. However, where claims for a well known occupational health risk such as lung cancer are being denied based on out-of-date information, one wonders how many other legitimate claims have been denied because the workers don't have the resources to access current scientific information to counter the faulty research used by the Board. Link to article

The Globe and Mail reports on a new study that indicates stress and depression have significantly increased among public sector workers at provincial and municipal levels. The past few years have seen significant budget cutbacks and downsizing that have resulted in major workload increases for those who kept their jobs, as they try to do more with less. It appears that the policy makers behind these decisions have completely ignored the human cost involved in their slash and burn tactics. In Ontario, the public sector unions are lobbying to have stress illness recognized as eligible for workers' compensation benefits, though in the last round of significant amendments to those laws, the province took steps to specifically exclude these kinds of claims. Link to story

Notwithstanding reports of record profits in the billions, the average insurance "reductions" filed by companies in Ontario fell short of the 10% promised by the Ontario Liberals when they won the provincial election last fall. Some companies have even been approved for higher rates. Although presumably it should be easier now for Ontario consumers to obtain car insurance at less than exorbitant prices, Ontario Finance Minister Greg Sorbora has indicated he would bring in further "changes" to help lower rates. Auto accident victims have been on the receiving end of these changes in the past, and for those who treat and represent the victims of automobile collisions, we can only wonder what further damage will be done to the rights of innocent victims. Link to Toronto Star column

Notwithstanding his claim to have implemented a "common sense" revolution, previous Ontario Tory Premier Mike Harris often demonstrated anything but common sense. A case in point is the half-billion dollars of taxpayers money directed to Accenture, a private company, to implement a new computer system to service the province's recipients of welfare and ODSP payments. The problem was reported to be riddled with design flaws that were brought to the government's attention from the begininng but completely ignored. The computers are frequently cutting off people erroneously; and but for the efforts of front-line workers to try to work around the enormous problems, the system likely would have broken down completely. Now as the Liberal government tries to implement a very modest increase in payments, the "half-billion dollar system" cannot even handle it. Millions more must be spent to fix the problem. The problems in the system perhaps demonstrate the Tories' total contempt for the poor who must depend on these payments, as well as their willingness to funnel hundreds of millions of taxpayers' dollars to benefit their friends in the private sector. One wonders how much better off the lives of the poor and disabled in this province would have been if that money had been directly provided to them rather than a system that made their lives even more miserable. Link to story in Toronto Star

The Liberal government of Ontario has directed the Law Society of Upper Canada (the self-regulating body governing all lawyers in Ontario) to deliver a consultation paper on the regulation of paralegals. Currently, there is limited or no regulation in this province for individuals calling themselves paralegals and who act for people before various boards, tribunals and small claims courts. The Law Society has delivered a preliminary consultation paper proposing that paralegals who do such work must be properly certified and regulated. Many citizens of the province are taken advantage of by unscrupulous individuals acting as paralegals who have neither the proper education nor other credentials to competently handle such matters. At the same time there are many who are very capable and are able to adequately represent people in less complex matters. However, the lack of regulation means the public has no way of knowing whether the paralegal they hire meets reasonable ethical and competency standards. However, there are some who question whether the Law Society should be the group that regulates this activity. See Toronto Star story

The Ontario Court of Appeal this morning released its decision in the case of Childs v. Desormeaux, which involved the question of whether homeowners who hosted a "bring your own booze" party were liable when one of their guests drove away drunk and seriously injured an innocent person in another car. The trial judge had ruled that for "policy reasons", homeowners would never be liable to users of the roadway if one of their guests drank at their premises, and thereafter caused an collision. This is known as "social host" liability, and has been a contentious issue in the courts, although it has yet to be successfully accepted in Ontario courts. The Court of Appeal, however, has left the door open as they decided that on the specific facts of the case the homeowners would not be liable, but made clear that they were not ruling that such actions could never be successful as a matter of policy. See link to case decision

As if Ontario residents have not had enough attacks on their rights should they become victims of a motor vehicle collision, the McGuinty Liberal government continues their attack by refusing to cover physiotherapy and chiropractic expenses anymore under OHIP. Recent changes to the insurance regulations have limited the number of treatments and amounts that can be paid in most cases, and now even OHIP won't cover anything. The relief that many car accident victims obtain from such treatments will likely be denied to them unless they are well-off and can afford to pay privately. And to add insult to injury, the Liberals are increasing court filing fees for those who need to sue in order to obtain adequate compensation for their injuries and losses.

The Ontario government has tabled a bill that would allow job protection for those who have to take time off to care for seriously ill family members, but the law does not include any monetary benefits to those who need to use it. The federal government has recently introduced changes to the Employment Insurance program to allow 6 weeks of benefits to those who need to use this program. The Ontario government is merely providing such individuals with time-limited job protection. However, it is likely that only those who are already self-sufficient financially will be able to afford to take the time off. Critics indicate that the law does nothing for those such as parents of autistic children, or those with severe disabilities that need long term assistance. See Toronto Star story

The all-party committee in New Brunswick that was conducting hearings into the so-called "insurance crisis" has recommended a government run (i.e. public auto insurance) system. However, the committee has unfortunately endorsed a pure no-fault system that would eliminate the right to sue for all accident victims in that province. Victims would be limited to a "schedule of benefits" that would not permit any compensation at all for pain and suffering. Experience in other provinces where no-fault insurance is available would suggest that the system will be woefully inadequate in terms of providing compensation and help to victims, and many no doubt will fall between the cracks in the system. Ironically, the President of Dominion Insurance is decrying the proposal on the basis of - among other things - taking the right to sue away from people and limiting compensation. It is interesting that they did not seem so concerned about taking away the rights of innocent accident victims in Ontario. Link to New Brunswick Proposal; also see link to insurance industry's response

The Ontario Liberal government announced increase funding for intensive behaviourial therapy for autistic children, in order to presumably reduce the backlogs and waiting lists for treatment. However they are still refusing to fund such treatment for children over age of 6, despite previous election promises by Dalton McGuinty to remedy this situation. While the increased funding is obviously welcomed by parents of those children who might qualify, no explanation has been offered as to why they insist on maintaining the age cap, despite the fact that the Ontario Human Rights Commission has agreed to hear a multitude of cases, seeing a case of possible age discrimination. As well the province continues to vigorously defend a lawsuit brought by parents seeking this necessary treatment for their children. Link to Toronto Star story

A Hamilton firefighter, who helped put out the devastating Hamilton Plastimet fire several years ago has died from cancer. His union is fighting on his behalf and numerous other firefighters who were exposed to a soup of deadly toxins as they struggled to extinguish one of Ontario's biggest environmental disasters. To date the WSIB has refused to accept that the cancer was work related, even though the firefighter was in "perfect health" prior to this fire, according to colleagues, and suffered a series of continual difficulties ever since that event. A number of medical experts support the firefighters' cause, and appeals are underway. The case points to the difficulty individuals face in getting compensation in a society where there is exposure to a whole range of poisonous substances - those who make decisions often seem to require a level of "scientific proof" beyond what currently exists. Link to Toronto Star story

The Toronto Star reports today that a group of thirty nurses who contracted the SARS virus have launched a lawsuit against the Ontario government, alleging that it failed to take proper precautions to protect them from the deadly disease. One of the nurses in the group did die, and most others are left with ongoing, disabling symptoms.The government indicated that they would defend against the claim. Link to story

The Financial Services Commission of Ontario, the government branch that regulates automobile insurance has provided a proposal paper that indicates the next stage of the government's desire to cut costs of claims - the elimination of DACs. These centres were supposed to provide neutral evaluations of injured victims to assess their level of disability, or entitlement to treatment and other benefits. The proposal appears to indicate the decision to eliminate DACs is question of when, not "if". They are proposing instead to have a "network" of approved assessors that either the insured or insurer can call upon although there is no information as to when and how often this "network" can be accessed. This system will replace the "insurer medical examinations" as well. It appears from the draft proposal that the parties will not be able to select specific doctors, but rather the Commission will have a system to automatically select a doctor from the roster when a request is made. Link to proposal

It was reported in the national media that the private insurance industry in Canada racked up record profits of more than $2.63 Billion Dollars in 2003 during a time that they aggressively lobbied politicians in many provinces on the dire straits they were facing because of alleged rising claim costs. It has become apparent that the soaring rate increases approved by provincial regulators were not as "necessary" as the insurers claimed. In the meantime, both the previous Conservative and current Liberal governments in Ontario have pursued a path of demolishing the rights of the innocent injured victims to access treatment, and receive compensation for the terrible harm that they suffer at the hands of negligent drivers. The National Union of Public and General Employees once again has called upon governments to implement public automobile insurance. See article. The national broadcasts on both CBC and CTV led off the news with stories of the insurance industry's good fortune, generating angry and skeptical responses from consumers who were interviewed.

The Globe and Mail reports on a catastrophic occupational disease situation in Sarnia Ontario, the legacy of a decades of being the "chemical valley", i.e. the headquarters of many refineries, chemical companies and toxic waste dumps. Described as a "slow-motion Bhopal", the article notes the lack of detailed record keeping to monitor the situation, but reports of excessively high levels of asbestos-related and other cancers. Further, the wives of workers have also been physically affected as a result of washing asbestos-laden clothes for years. The WSIB has even set up a special liason office in the local hospitals to monitor the situation. Benefits, unfortunately, are substantially limited under provincial legislation and cannot begin to fairly compensate the victims for what they have and will lose in their quality of life. See story

A lawsuit for libel against the CBC program Fifth Estate was dismissed by an Ontario Superior court. Dr. Jack Richman, Dr. H. Shah and Assessmed Inc. sued the network after they aired a program a few years ago on the tribulations of accident victims whose benefits were terminated as a result of reports by Assessmed - notwithstanding strong evidence of total disability. The program highlighted the fact that Assessmed did reports almost exclusively for the insurance industry, and that the vast majority of them were detrimental to the injured persons. Dr. Richman in particular had written an article alleging the vast majority of chronic pain victims had no disabilities whatsoever. The comments that Richman complained about on the program were deemed fair comment, and accurate. The trial lasted 75 days. Link to Judgment

The Ontario Human Rights Commission has decided to order a tribunal hearing to examine the cases of 121 families, whose children are being denied important and costly therapy solely based on their age. The intensive behavioural treatments can cost families up to $50,000 per year. The Ontario government pays for this therapy up to the age of six but arbitrarily refuses to pay for treatments after that time. The OHRC has determined that there are good grounds for arguing that this discrimination based on age is a violation of the Human Rights Act. The Liberal government promised to extend the treatment but so far have failed to implement any changes. See National Post story.

A Hamilton jury in a civil personal injury case awarded a total of $830,000 in damages to a young woman, who as a pedestrian, was struck down by a former Hamilton Tiger-Cat football player. The defendant had been drinking at the McMaster University student pub, and consumed at least 15 drinks before "driving like a maniac" and strking down the plaintiff, a young university student and athlete. The victim suffered a badly fractured leg and a closed head brain injury, and was forced to abandon her career plans as well as her athetic activities. The trial itself lasted 8 weeks. The award included amounts for punitive and aggravated damages which is the first time this has occurred in a motor vehicle case against a drunk driver. The insurance company of the defendant is already suggesting this case will drive up insurance rates, when the fact is that the costs and damages that they will have to pay far exceed a reasonable settlement amount, due to the current trend on the part of insurance companies to force cases to trial no matter what the cost. It is not badly injured victims who drive up insurance costs, but rather the unreasonable and adversarial approaches taken by the insurance industry. See Toronto Star story See March 17th story above - surely the insurance industry can affort to pay fair compensation to victims when their profits are reaching record levels.

Despite campaigning on promises to raise the amounts payable for welfare and under the Ontario disability support plan, the provincial government has decided that this is one more promise it will not honour for the time being. Blaming the 5.6 billion dollar deficit, the government has decided that it cannot afford to grant an increase in these rates, thus once again the most vulnerable in society are bearing the brunt of government fiscal policy. While the cost of living continues to go up each year, those at the poorest end of society have not been granted an increase since 1995 when the Conservatives froze all welfare payments. See Toronto Star story

An article in the Lawyers Weekly and the Toronto Star reveals some of the outrageous demands that the insurance industry is pressuring the Liberal government to adopt in their ceaseless quest for even more profits. They want to revoke the right to sue for health care expenses for all victims (after already convincing the government to drastically reduce access to health care under the no-fault schedule); eliminate the right to sue for economic loss unless a person meets the horrendous "threshold" test implemented by the previous Conservative government), among other changes. Essentially, 95% of seriously injured car accident victims would recover next to nothing under the insurance industry's wish list. They would be denied essential health care. No doubt most victims will end up in a state of dire poverty, dependent upon welfare to survive. One can only hope that the Liberal government will see through the insurance industry's scheme, and refuse to allow them to win large profits at the expense of the innocent victim, and at the expense of all taxpayers of Ontario. See story

The CBC reports on a sharp increase in adverse drug reactions experienced by children in Canada, many of whom require hospitalization as a result. It is noted that anti-depressants have been prescribed to children in increasing numbers, but this alone does not account for the current results. As drug-testing would not normally involve children, there is likely a lack of data regarding what dosages may be appropriate for a child, if any. However, the tracking database maintained by the Health Ministry is not comprehensive, as it is estimated that only one in ten adverse reactions are reported. See story

The Toronto Star reports on the growing chorus of critics of the province's mandatory literacy examination, which is now a prerequisite to obtaining a high school diploma. The test, however, fails to take into account that many individuals who may have learning disabilities are fully capable of succeeding in post-secondary education, and pursuing high level careers. Instead, the new test will shut out these people from ever obtaining decent employment, since a high school diploma is required for many jobs, and every post-secondary educational institution. As well an increasing number of high school dropouts are being seen, likely due to the frustration of students who cannot pass the test, and do not see the point of continuing to Grade 12 since they cannot obtain a diploma. Adult literacy classes are filled up, but these are restricted to those 19 and over, so teens are not able to access such help. Dalton McGuinty, however, refuses to agree to scrap this test. See story

The Ottawa Citizen reports on a family law case where the presiding judge ordered the government to provide sign language interpreters to former spouses, both of whom were deaf. A motion was brought jointly requiring the government to provide the service, based on Section 14 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which requires deaf persons to be provided interpreters in "any proceeding". A government spokesman had indicated that they usually only provide such services in cases involving the government, such as criminal trials. Their policy was that in civil litigation between private parties, the litigants had to arrange and pay for any interpreters that were needed, although from time to time the government had provided interpreters in the past in similar situations. Since section 14 also refers to other persons who cannot understand the language of the proceedings, this case may open the door for state-provided interpreters in other civil cases where the person involved cannot speak or understand English or French. See story

The Toronto Star reports on the story of a man whose partner died several years ago as a result of asbestos-related disease contracted during a job performed three decades previously. However, at the time death, no one advised the partner of the possibility of workers compensation benefits being available. Both British Columbia and Ontario current allow for survivor pensions to same-sex partners for those who die of occupational disease or accident. The man was successful in obtaining a survivors pension of $2,000 per month from the BC workers compensation board. However, the delay in applying meant he did not receive retroactive benefits. See story

The Supreme Court of Canada has agreed to hear a case dealing with taxability of disability benefit settlements. Many long term disability plans pay benefits that are subject to income tax. When an insurer denies the benefit, and the claimant is forced to sue, actions are often settled for a lump sum for past present and future benefits. The Canadian government in the past has treated these settlements as taxable in the year that the lump sum is received, often resulting in a substantial tax liability to the victim. One claimant has challenged this approach to the Federal Court of Appeal, and now the Supreme Court will at some future date hear a full appeal on the right of the government to tax these kinds of settlements.

Many new cars today are built with special recording devices that determine essential data as to vehicle speeds, changes in velocity, seatbelt use and application of brakes in the seconds leading up to a collision. The data from these devices has been used to help convict some drivers, as well as clear others. Proving liability for a crash is essential to recover damages against the at-fault driver, and these devices may provide important information in this regard. However, there are privacy concerns about police and insurance investigators accessing this data without the permission of the car owner. Some are speculating that services such as GM's Onstar could transmit this data automatically after a crash. See story from CNEWS Canada