The Ontario government gave a Christmas Eve "present" to insurance companies in a regulation filed on December 24th, further cutting back on the rights of car accident victims. The timing no doubt planned to avoid any press scrutiny, among the changes to come into effect for accidents after April 14, 2004, including no more income replacement benefits for those whose income was not reported on tax returns; limited income benefits to 12 or 16 weeks, if victims are diagnosed with Grade 1 or 2 whiplash, and no attendant care expenses at all for victims in that category. It is doubtful that these petty attacks on victims rights will yield the savings to result in a 10% premium reduction as promised by the Liberals, so we can expect more unheralded regulations to slip in unnoticed in the coming weeks. Link to new regulation

The Toronto Star reports today on the ongoing controversy regarding cell phone use and possible changes, including cancer or benign tumours to the brain. Scientific research in the past that had attributed some risk to those who use their cell phones for sustained periods of time have been vigorously attacked by the industry. One researcher hired by the industry in 1993 released his findings in 1999 which appear to support increased risk of brain cancer and other tumours among cell phone users. The World Health Organization is currently in the midst of an intensive study of the issue of the effect of electromagnetic radiation with results expected to be released in early 2005. While the industry continues to insist cell phones are safe, some are advocating at least limiting use, particularly by children. See link to story

Many victims of the West Nile virus outbreak that occurred in 2002 are still suffering from debilitating disabilities, according to a CTV.ca report. Individuals are suffering from symptoms including severe pain, paralysis and blindness. Many complain about the lack of interest by health care practitioners and hospitals in providing care and treatment for these individuals. It appears that medical professionals are at a loss as to how to treat these victims. A Toronto lawyer has commenced a lawsuit on behalf of a number of these victims, alleging the Ontario government failed to take adequate steps to prevent infections, and has failed to provide adequate care. See story

A former miner at the Westray mine who participated in the rescue efforts and suffered post traumatic stress disorder has had to wait 10 years for his benefits to be reinstated. At one time he had to pawn his medal of bravery because of lack of income. The Steelworkers union helped the man win his appeal. He has not been able to hold a job since the events of the mine disaster. In August of 2002, the Supreme Court of Canada dismissed a lawsuit by survivors of the victims to seek compensation against the mine owners. See link to Globe and Mail story

The Globe and Mail today reports on a growing problem resulting from the move of the economy toward more 24 hour services - the fact that many workers are required to work shifts that can lead to serious sleep disorders. A Nova Scotia court last year dismissed the claim of a Michelin employee who was forced to work rotating shifts resulting in a debilitating sleep disorder, however another case is currently pending before the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal in Ontario. The case has attracted input and intervention from many employer groups seeking to stop workers from being eligible for benefits as a result of illnesses caused by mandatory shift work. Link to story.

At a conference of mental health agencies in London, Ontario, the Labour Minister and other Liberal MPP's attended and indicated that the Liberal government plans to make substantial improvements to the delivery of mental health services in Ontario communities. Reports commissioned by the previous Tory government had been buried, but are now being released by the Liberals. Lack of budget increases for a decade meant that many dedicated front line workers have not received a raise during this time. As well, thousands have been deprived of essential services. Link to story

Ontario's new Labour Minister, Chris Bentley was met with demonstrating injured workers and agreed to a formal meeting in January to discuss the fact that benefits have been frozen for the past 8 years without any increase for inflation. He told the injured workers that he agreed that they had a right to be treated with "fairness and dignity". Injured workers are among many groups in the province who have struggled under the punitive policy changes imposed by the Tories so that they could benefit rich corporations through tax cuts. It remains to be seen whether the Liberal government will actually respond to the needs of those who suffer from disabilities, and limited income supports. Link to London Free Press Story

The Toronto Star reports today on a threatened challenge to Ontario's Grade 10 high school literacy test which must be passed by students before they can graduate from high school. The test has been criticized by many, and prevents many individual with disabilities from having the opportunity to complete their high school education, which can only inflict severe disadvantages on those individuals in attempting to follow their career plan and pursue post-secondary education. The provincial Education Minister has promised to take a look at the testing, although many thousands of Ontario students have been unable to pass the test since it was implemented a couple of years ago. Link to story

The Ontario Court of Appeal ruled today in a case where a young woman who moved to New Mexico to pursue studies claimed no fault benefits from the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims fund on the basis that she was "ordinarily resident" in Ontario. The trial judge had ruled in her favour based on an interpretation of various provisions of the relevant legislation. The Fund is a operated by the government to provide benefits to those who have no access to such benefits from other insurance. The Court of Appeal overturned the trial judgment and determined that the victim could not make such a claim. The accident occurred in 1997, and the legislation had been changed subsequently to make clear that similar cases could not succeed in a claim to the Fund. Link to case

The Globe and Mail reports today on a letter that Dalton McGuinty wrote shortly prior to the election call condemning the provincial Tory government for denying important treatment to autistic children over the age of 5. Long waiting lists mean that many children who would qualify, are denied the opportunity to do so. Presently there is a lengthy trial ongoing that the province is fighting, along with other lawsuits and many human rights complaints. Despite McGuinty's clear and unequivocal condemnation of what appears to be clear age discrimination, the province appears to be fighting even harder now, according to lawyers familiar with the case. So far, Premier McGuinty has been silent on whether he will amend a government policy that has a major detrimental effect on the quality of life of many autistic children and their families. Link to story

The Toronto Star ran a series last week on the case of a Hamilton woman who died after neglect of serious medical problems in two different nursing homes, along with a story on the statistics of cases of abuse and neglect in provincial nursing homes. The new Ontario Health Minister, George Smitherman has responded to the story by promising sweeping reforms to the regulation of Ontario nursing homes. The expose revealed widespread instances of serious neglect of elderly patients, resulting in serious and often fatal conditions. Link to story

The Supreme Court of Canada today issued a ruling permitting a lawsuit to proceed against police officers who failed to comply with their obligation of cooperation with the Special Investigations Unit regarding a fatal shooting. The family of the deceased sued the police and other government departments for the mental anguish and turmoil caused by the police officer's refusal to cooperate. While the police were ultimately cleared of wrongdoing in the shooting, this decision appears to clarify the law on when public employees may be liable for deliberate failure to comply with their legal duties. The ruling does not mean that the family will ultimately win their case, but only dealt with the preliminary issue of whether the case should be allowed to go to trial. The test to strike out a case at an early stage is fairly onerous, essentially requiring that the court be convinced the case has absolutely no chance at all of succeeding based on the law. The case is helpful in establishing what must be proved in such a case for a claimant to succeed. For a copy of the decision, click here

As the UN marked December 3, 2003 as International Day of Disabled Persons, Canadian statistics paint a grim picture for Canada's own population of 2 million people with disabilities. The 1990's saw drastic government cutbacks and denial of important services such as home care, transportation and help with other costs. The National Union of Public and General Employees identifies one of the major setbacks to be the actions of Paul Martin, as Finance Minister in 1995 when he eliminated the Canada Assistance Plan, which provided funding to provincial and community efforts to maintain programs to help the disabled. The Union is calling on Martin to take immediate steps to remedy the situation, and implement an agenda to help disabled individuals gain greater access to good employment, health care, home care and other needs. See press release

The Toronto Star reports to day on a Hamilton agency devoted to assisting recent immigrants that is seeking funding to help victims of torture and rape with counselling and other help. Many recent immigrants are refugees from war torn countries and have suffered severe trauma and distress. Currently such a program is only available in Toronto, and it is extremely difficult for many of these individuals to access such help. While much of iaminjured.com deals with injuries caused through accidents, it is important to remember that people can suffer severe psychological and physical trauma from many different situations, including violence and assault. Seeking compensation from the wrongdoers is often impossible in such situations, particularly where perpetrators are located outside of Canada. The Settlement and Integration Services Organization in Hamilton helps newcomers find housing, income assistance and education.

The Liberal Throne Speech delivered recently, which outlines the planned policies of the new Liberal government was silent on one of its most important promises to those who are disabled - the promise to raise the benefit and improve the system to be fairer to those who suffer disability. The rates have not been increased at all during the 8 years of Tory rule, while the cost of living has risen 18% during that time. Many disabled persons are unable to afford necessary medication or gain access to other treatment. ODSP often refuses even to recognize mental health programs prescribed by psychiatrists. The Liberal minister in charge of ODSP has so far refused to meet with representatives of the ODSP action coalition. Despite Dalton McGuinty's advice to the electorate to "choose change", it appears that change is not in the cards for the poorest disabled members of our society. See Toronto Star column

As the Liberal government introduced a Bill yesterday in the legislature to freeze auto insurance premiums until January, it does not appear that they will be prepared to address a growing problem arising from the last minute changes implemented by the previous Tory government. Reports are multiplying of injured persons being extra-billed by therapists who say they cannot afford to treat motor vehicle accident victims at the schedule of reduced fees put into place by the Tories. Many victims cannot afford the extra charges, which cannot be recovered under the current law, and thus will not get treatment needed to alleviate their injuries. A spokesperson for the Minister of Finance has indicated that the Liberals are not considering an increase in those rates (despite an indication during the election that they would consider this). At this point there is no indication that the Liberals will make changes to help victims of motor vehicle collisions. See story

The Ontario Liberal government introduced a bill today to freeze auto insurance premiums to levels approved as of October 23, 2003. The rate freeze would be in effect until January. At the same time, they announced further "consultations" on how to bring down rates a further 10%. No indication has been given on what changes might be made. However, apart from revoking a regulation that would have reduced the no-fault income replacement benefit by $100 per week, the Liberals have not yet made any other changes to the drastic cutbacks in victims' compensation that the Tories passed just before the election (which changes we were told would lead to a 15% reduction in premiums). The Liberals did hold extensive public discussions in the summer as they prepared for the election. See Toronto Star story

The Toronto Star reports today on a recent Ontario Court of Appeal ruling that interpreted the no-fault regulation in effect from November 1, 1996 to the recent amendments of October 1, 2003. The regulation had prevented certain categories of persons from collecting income replacement benefits, e.g. driving without insurance, and specifically if convicted of a criminal offence (regardless of whether the offence caused the accident). Poor drafting by the Tory government left open a loophole that prevented those charged with a criminal offence from collecting income replacement benefits only while the charge was pending. Whether acquitted or convicted, the injured person was allowed to collect the benefits once the charges were disposed of. While the loophole is now closed to prevent those convicted of a criminal offence from collecting income benefits, the ruling may allow persons previously denied such benefits on this basis from now collecting. See story

A survey conducted at the University of Toronto by occupational therapist researchers found that a large percentage of workers felt that the system forced them back to work and pressured them to "get better" as soon as possible. The rehabilitation and back to work processes caused a great deal of concern among workers. Many became depressed as they experienced lack of respect and trust from both employers and the Board. Furthermore many workers felt they did not have access to adequate information about their rights and the remedies available. Link to story

The Toronto Star reports that the new list of paralegals who have registered with the government contains individuals with criminal records. Under new regulations passed by the previous government, only those who register with the government and prove they have errors and omissions insurance can represent victims of car accidents. However, the government commission does not screen these paralegals, or otherwise regulate their conduct. The public remains unprotected as there is no licensing, or minimal education requirement by those who would present themselves as registered paralegals. Furthermore, the "insurance coverage" in all likelihood will not cover losses caused by intentional acts such as fraud (and there are convicted fraudsters on the Financial Services Commission registered list). Until the government gets serious about regulating and controlling who can offer services as a paralegal, the public is best protected by consulting lawyers - who must meet exhaustive educational requirements, are licensed and controlled by the Law Society of Upper Canada, and properly insured. Many personal injury lawyers understand the financial circumstances of accident victims and are prepared to act on terms that will be affordable (e.g. contingency or "percentage" retainers that require payment of fees only in the case of success - the Insurance Act now bars paralegals from charging on a contingency basis).

In hearings in New Brunswick, the private insurance lobby group Insurance Bureau of Canada financed the appearance before a government committee by an allegedly "independent" researcher who merely submitted discredited claims that public auto insurance puts more dangerous drivers on the road. The researchers ties to the IBC were not disclosed to the committee beforehand. The head of the committee, NDP leader Elizabeth Weir felt that they had been misled, and that the presentation did not provide any useful information. See story. In other developments, insurers have tried to pressure governments by pulling out of the Nova Scotia insurance market. Jevco insurance, despite the fact that they are making money, had pulled out because they don't like the "attitude" of the government.

The Toronto Star reports today that many disabled children are being suspended from school for indefinite periods of time as a result of behavioural incidents directly related to their disabilities. The Safe Schools Act, passed by the previous Tory government was meant to give schools a method of dealing with those who conduct willingly conduct themselves in a violent or improper manner. However, it is being used by many school boards to keep out those whose behaviour is beyond their control due to disability. The Commissioner of the Human Rights Board has been raising questions about the propriety of such actions. See story

In another story, the Star reports on a disabled student who successfully challenged the Halton Board of Education's plan for him, by appealing to the Ontario Special Education Tribunal, and will now have a program more suited to his needs. In the past it has been extremely difficult to challenge decisions made by Boards, forcing parents to spend a lot of money on private school or other programs to try to help their children. See story

The Toronto Star reports today on a case involving Ontario residents who experienced a devastating accident while travelling in California. The husband was injured and his wife was killed as a result of the negligence of an uninsured driver. A California court determined that his losses were worth over 1.3 million dollars (US). However, only $30,000 was available because of low insurance limits required in that state. Most Ontarians have "underinsurance" as part of their policy which requires their own insurer to cover the difference between the limits of the Ontario policy (minimum $200,000 but most have a $1 million limit or more), and the policy of the at fault driver. However this "protection" may be illusory as insurers will argue that despite being a California accident, the husband is limited to only the compensation payable under Ontario law - which readers of this site will know is extremely limited, and subject to arbitrary reductions. The article provides a good overview of the complications involved for Ontario residents travelling in other provinces or in the United States.

As the new Liberal cabinet is about to be sworn in on Thursday, questions are being raised about the government's ability to cut premiums by 10% within 90 days. The Federal government regulates the financial health of insurance companies across Canada, and has suggested that auto insurers may not be in a strong position, although they did earn $2 billion in profits last year. The federal regulators also deny that risky stock market investments by insurers are to blame, but without doing any research of their own, simply quoted the unproven claims of the major private insurer lobby group, the Insurance Bureau of Canada. Interestingly, the report apparently does not mention the health of public auto insurance plans, which at least in British Columbia, is able to offer affordable insurance without taking away victims' rights. See Toronto Star story

Alberta has become the latest province to give in to the private insurance industry by arbitrarily capping pain and suffering for soft tissue injuries to $4,000. See story. Similar reforms have also been implemented elsewhere, although public auto insurance is still being seriously considered by the Atlantic provinces. Despite government attempts to increase insurers' profits on the back of victim, a recent Supreme Court of Canada decision (see below) gives some hope that trying to limit the rights for those with certain types of injuries would violate the Charter.

A professor at the University of Alberta has received a grant from the federal government to study why some accident victims are resilient and "bounce back" while others may be left with chronic post-traumatic stress disorder. Dr. Nicholas Coupland will study car accident victims during the initial months to see the psychological effects of the accidents. Dr. Coupland acknowledges that 18% of crash victims do suffer from permanent post-traumatic stress disorder. See Edmonton Journal story

In a landmark decision, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled yesterday that workers' compensation laws limiting the right to benefits for injured workers with chronic pain, are unconstitutional and violate the Charter right to equality. In a 9-0 decision, the unanimous court held that administrative tribunals (such as workers' compensation) have the authority to apply the Charter to cases before it. Furthermore, the Court recognized that validity of chronic pain as a disability, and determined that such victims should have an equal right to benefits and treatment as workers with other types of injuries. The case is Nova Scotia v. Martin. The case could have major ramifications for any government action that attempts to treat certain categories of injuries or disability in a different manner than other types of injury. The Tory government in Ontario had in fact passed changes to the law permitting limitation or elimination of benefits for chronic pain sufferers, but such were never put into effect. The new decision should make clear to future governments that such changes would not survive a constitutional challenge. Link here to the Court Judgment

After eight years of Tory rule, Ontario voters repudiated the "common sense" revolution of Mike Harris that often saw the disabled relegated to second-class citizen status. Dalton McGuinty and his Liberals have won an overwhelming majority in the Ontario Legislature. However, apart from promising voters "change", little is known about what policies the new Liberal government will implement that will directly help or hinder the injured. Auto Insurance reform is one of the priorities that have been promised, but apart from rate freezes or rollbacks, the Liberals have not indicated whether they will revoke the recent regulatory changes imposed by the Tories that will have drastically reduce the potential to recover some compensation. During the past election campaign, little was mentioned about the rights of the disabled, about the low benefits and lack of increase in the Ontario Disability Support Plan, or other actions that could improve the opportunities and quality of life for those disabled by injury or illness.

In a trilogy of rulings released today, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled against the rights of victims of sexual abuse to seek recourse against government authorities. Two of the cases involved individuals who were placed in foster care, and abused in that environment. Although in one of the cases, the government was found to be directly negligent it was decided that that victim waited too long to sue. The concept of vicarious liability, where an employer is held liable for wrongful actions of its employees was not extended to the relationship between the government and the foster parents it contracts with. In the third case, a school board was found not to be vicariously liable for the abuse committed by a janitor on school property. The decisions will likely make it harder for abuse victims to recover compensation as in most cases the perpetrators have little or no assets with which to satisfy the damages for the severe lifelong harm that is inflicted on the victims.

The Ontario government has failed to meet the deadline it set for revealing plans for making Ontario government institutions more accessible for the disabled. The Ontarians with Disabilities Act was passed in 2001 but September 30, 2003 was the deadline set in the law for revealing the government's plans to comply with the act. However it appears to have exempted itself at the last minute blaming the election. A spokesperson for the government claims that "My understanding of the protocol is that you take care of critical issues and business, and any new business or new issues are curtailed until after an election, after we know ... the outcome". This is the same government, however, that completely disregarded "protocol" in putting into force regulations that dramatically restricted the rights of accident victims - regulations that were not even published prior to the election call. Critics charge that this is typical of the Conservative government which has shown much disregard for the rights of the disabled in this province. See Toronto Star story

Despite silence from the candidates in this present election campaign, the next provincial government needs to address the devastation wrought by eight years of slashed social assistance and other benefits to help the most vulnerable in society, according to those who work on the front lines of the social services system. Slashed welfare benefits, difficulties in accessing Ontario Disability Support Plan payments, withdrawal of funding for various agencies and programs, and elimination of plans for low cost housing have forced many needy individuals into the street, and deprived them of the resources needed to help rebuild their lives and become productive citizens. See Toronto Star story for more

As the SARS inquest gets underway before Mr. Justice Campbell in Toronto, a nurses union has indicated that they are considering a lawsuit to seek further compensation for nurses and their families who suffered as a result of SARS exposures. The nurses and their families are entitled to file claims with the Workers Safety and Insurance Board, as well as possible long term disability insurance claims. Lawsuits against a person's own employer for injury caused in the course of work are prohibited in Ontario. If the nurses do proceed, it will be interesting to see how the courts deal with a claim against the government, and whether Ontario workers' compensation legislation will be interpreted in a manner to protect the government from such claims. Link here to National Post story

The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission has issued a recall on the "revolutionary" Segway people transporter due to injury risks. It appears when batteries are low, insufficient power flows to the system causing instability and risk of falling. The Segway was introduced last year amidst much hype and secrecy as the next great technology that was going to revolutionize the way people interacted with the urban landscape. Segway Scooters have yet to be introduced in any substantial numbers to the Canadian market, although their utility in Canadian winter conditions appears dubious. Link to CBC story.

In New Brunswick, hearings are proceeding before a provincial board investigating skyrocketing insurance costs in that province. However, several private insurers have balked at the idea of revealing their "competitive" intelligence, whatever that might be. Despite the fact that the private insurance industry continues to propound the idea that they are "losing" money on auto insurance because of alleged "soaring claims costs", it would seem that they are afraid to reveal to the public their actual data. A victim in the courts has the burden of proof to establish what he or she has lost as a result of a car accident. The private insurers, on the other hand, want the public to pay without having to prove their "case".

The Toronto Star reports today that the arbitrary cuts in amounts car insurers will have to pay for treatment will detrimentally affect some of the most vulnerable individuals. Therapists involved in treating brain-injured individuals currently charge fees that are reasonable given the costs involved in running such practices, and the training and qualifications involved. The Tories new regulations that drastically cut the fees that insurers have to pay will drive many away from involving themselves with car accident victims, leading to less services available, longer waiting lists for OHIP funded services, and poorer outcomes for victims. The attack on rights for victims to compensation and treatment will no doubt lead to more individuals left with nothing to rely on but social services to survive - where the lack of any increase in 10 years means many live in abject poverty. See story for more on ODSP

The provincial Tories made good on their threats to proclaim the new restrictions on victims rights - including a detailed definition of "permanent serious impairments" that will no doubt be the subject of much litigation as courts try to interpret the convoluted new wording. Health care practitioners will find the amounts they can charge will be cut, probably leading many to stay away from car accident victims. Also, the Tories have reduced the basic income replacement benefit to a maximum of $300 per week, although excess amounts could still be claimed by a lawsuit against at-fault parties. The regulation compels insurers to offer optional higher benefit limits for those with higher incomes and want the most protection possible. The right to sue for excess health care expenses apparently is being proclaimed for those who meet the new restrictive threshold (previously only those with "catastrophic injuries" could sue for excess health care costs) - however this may not mean much as the new threshold may well be interpreted in way that would exclude some catastrophically injured persons from qualifying - we could be looking at less protection than before. (note: if your accident was before October 1st, most of these changes won't apply to you, so it is a good idea to consult a lawyer to find out exactly what you can do). It appears that recent reports of excessive profits have not moved the Tories to revisit their attack on victims' rights.

The Toronto Sun today reports that private automobile / property insurers collectively reported a 486% increase in profits comparable to the second quarter of last year. Despite claims of "difficulty" in the auto sector, the 3 month profit level of these insurers was close to $650 million dollars, which extrapolates to $2.6 billion for the year. Given the outrageous increases in premiums, it should not be surprising that profits would go through the roof. However the governments claim that they need to cut back victims rights further would appear completely unsupportable given the latest information. The Consumers association wants a royal commission of inquiry called into the insurance industry. Click here for a link to the Toronto Sun story. In other news, it appears today the government will release the new regulations that will unnecessarily deprive victims of needed compensation.

There is bad news for accident victims in Ontario. Despite calling an election, in direct violation of parliamentary tradition, and even in the face of a recent poll showing the Tories are far behind the Liberals, Tory car insurance commissioner Rob Sampson is telling the press that all of the drastic cuts to victims rights (discussed in our August 29th headline story) will go ahead. The exact nature of the changes is unknown, but some have indicated that based on previous drafts the right to sue will be taken away from children and head injury victims. As of this writing, the regulations have yet to be filed but at iaminjured.com, we hope to have details posted as soon as they are available. The changes will likely apply to accidents occurring after October 1, 2003. The Hamilton Spectator has a full story in its September 16th edition. Sep 18 - see Toronto Star column for further details on changes to be announced today

An earlier draft regulation regarding the "threshold" indicates precise definitions of "permanent", "impairment " and "function" - the focus appears to be on individuals who suffer a continuous inability to perform their job, or "most" of the activities of daily living. The regulation still has not been officially filed, but if it is similar, then the number of people whose cases will entitle them to pain and suffering compensation will likely drop significantly. The victims who do meet the test will still lose $30,000 "off the top" in the form of a deductible. Economic loss claims do not appear to be affected. Remember though, these changes only affect accidents happening after October 1st. If you were in an accident before then, your won't be affected by these changes.

Rob Sampson, the Tory Commissioner of Auto Insurance, has been telling voters that cases such as that of Corina Snider should never get to court, despite the fact that the judge hearing the case determined had calamitous results for the plaintiff, causing permanent severe neck and back pain and headaches. Snider's pain and suffering award of $25,000 from a jury was automatically reduced thanks to the existing Tory "deductible" to an amount of only $10,000. Despite continuous claims that pain and suffering awards are out of control, the "deductible" not only has reduced such awards but deterred many legitimate claimants from proceeding. The public has not been provided hard data from the government or the insurance industry about exactly how much is in fact paid under the category of "pain and suffering" as opposed to other costs such as insurance medical reports, insurance lawyer costs, private investigation costs (used by insurers on victims), amounts paid to health care providers etc. The pain and suffering component likely forms only a very small part of the picture, and can not explain the repeated increases in consumers' premiums.

A story in the Hamilton Spectator on September 12, 2003 reports on a just released Statistics Canada study on disabled persons in Canada. Not surprisingly, poverty is often the fate of those who suffer injury and disability, with few employment possibilities. This is particularly the case in Ontario, where successive Tory governments have cut and/or froze welfare payments to those who are disabled, as well as making such benefits more difficult to collect. Access to other potential sources of compensation, such as car insurance policies in the cases of personal injury accident have been substantially restricted in recent years. For recipients of Canada Pension Plan disability, there are supposed to be changes that would allow persons to try to return to work without jeopardizing their rights to such benefits should they not be successful, such changes have not yet been implemented.

A story in the Hamilton Spectator today quotes Howard Hampton as promising significant reductions if he is elected and able to put into place a public auto insurance program. However, in the same story, he criticized the Tories for not enacting the changes announced on August 29th before calling the provincial election. In this story and elsewhere, Hampton has referred to the British Columbia, Saskatchewan and Manitoba systems interchangably as model public systems - but there are significant differences. Only B.C. allows full right of access to the courts for all claims, whereas both Saskatchewan and Manitoba have no-fault systems that arbitrarily limit what victims can recover. Such no-fault systems would likely put victims in a worse position than they would be under the proposed Tory and Liberal "private schemes". It has to be kept in mind that these schemes not only affect people who buy car insurance, but harm everyone who may be hurt as a passenger or a pedestrian.

A study released today by the Consumer Association of Canada shows that Ontario residents are being charged the highest prices anywhere in Canada for automobile insurance. The study also indicates that rates vary between insurers by thousands of dollars in some instances for the same coverage. Despite evidence that substantial profits are being made by private automobile insurers, insurers continue to demand further cutbacks in victims' rights. It should be noted that for personal injury lawsuits, the same legal principles (free of thresholds and deductibles) apply in British Columbia, with damage assessments comparable to Ontario court decisions, yet there is no demand to curb "soaring" court costs. The logical conclusion is that personal injury claims are not driving these exhorbitant increases in premiums, and cutting victims rights further will have no measurable impact on premium rates. The Consumer Association is collecting "insurance stories" from the public at http://www.cacbc.com

Because of the election call, the package of reforms announced on August 29th that would have imposed greater cuts to the rights of victims cannot be put into force, even though the Eves cabinet apparently agreed on the necessary regulations. This is potential good news for accident victims, as the implementation of these changes would probably not take place unless the Tories retain their majority on October 2nd. It appears that insurance companies will still have to re-file their rate demands with the government by September 30th, but are claiming that they cannot reduce rates by the percentages promised by Eves. See Toronto Star story See more recent stories above - the Tories went ahead and implemented the changes during the election.

Ontario Premier Ernie Eves called the long-anticipated election and automobile insurance will likely be one of the key issues in the campaign. While Eves seems content to impose drastic restrictions on victims' rights, NDP leader Howard Hampton is the only candidate arguing for the elimination of the profit component of insurance premiums in order to allow reasonable prices, and allowing victims greater rights. Hampton has urged his rivals to go visit British Columbia where public auto insurance allows full access to court claims for innocent victims, while keeping insurance premiums affordable.

Hampton also discredited a private-insurance sponsored report from the Fraser Institute that attempts to use scare tactics, alleging that public auto insurance causes more deaths and injuries, suggesting low rates allow more dangerous drivers to afford the ability to drive. Hampton pointed out that the report misrepresented the rates charged to those with bad driving records, indicating they are in fact charged more than in Ontario under the British Columbia system.

Liberal Leader Dalton McGuinty has not advocated a public system, but promises lower insurance premiums. However, the Liberals have not made clear exactly how they would change the existing rules for claims by injured persons. It is anticipated that they will not impose the draconian limits promised by Ernie Eves, but the public awaits more specifics from McGuinty.

The recent publicized report from the right-wing Fraser Institute, indicates that in 2001, automobile insurance premiums collected totalled $11 billion dollars, while the cost of claims totalled $7 billion, leaving an excess of $4 billion dollars. The Insurance Bureau of Canada website (an interest group representing the private insurance industry) states that private insurers contribute 1.2 billion dollars per year to the Ontario treasury each year in the form of taxes. Given that taxes are paid on profits, and likely an equivalent amount of taxes are paid to the federal government, private insurers in Ontario appear to be generating profits of several billion dollars.

The "threshold" or test needed to recover pain and suffering compensation is to be redefined, and will undoubtedly reduce the number of cases that qualify for such compensation. The current threshold requires "permanent" "serious" "impairments of important physical, mental or psychological functions". The new wording has yet to be released, but the goal of the government appears to be to take away the courts ability to decide how to interpret the law in a manner that is fair to victims, and give them a prescribed list of injuries that qualify, much like the test to determine "catastrophic impairment".

Another change affects no-fault benefits payable by the victim's own insurer. For income replacement benefits, which are calculated as a percentage of pre-accident income, benefits will only be based on income reported on the person's tax returns. That is non-reported income will no longer be included. This will likely impact most upon low income earners who take casual cash jobs, and service industry employees such as waiters and cab drivers, where much of the income comes in the form of tips.

The Ontario government has implemented changes to the Insurance Act that will see the elimination of the right of many car accident victims to recoup compensation for their pain, suffering and economic losses. Other changes will limit the right to treatment for neck and back injuries. Effective October 1, 2003, the "deductible" from pain and suffering awards will rise to $30,000 - which means if a court decides that fair compensation for an injury is $30,000, the victim gets nothing. A $40,000 court award is reduced to $!0,000. Assessments in this range represent fairly serious problems with long term pain and restriction of activities. Lawsuits for many people with very serious problems will not be economically feasible.

The threshold - or test - that victims have to prove even to be allowed to sue for pain and suffering hasn't changed - yet. However the government has put forth proposals that would see this test become much tougher, and rule out the right to sue for injury that might be characterised as psychological (note - many doctors consider serious chronic pain to be psychological in origin).

With respect to no-fault benefits, there are much shorter time limits for reporting claims and submitting benefit documentation such as receipts and invoices (7 days); and the insurer now has a right to subject car accident victims to oral examinations under oath about any claim they wish to make. Certain whiplash injuries will result in only very limited treatment entitlement according to government rules (effectively a one size fits all approach regardless of the individual's real need or their doctors' recommendations).

Political concerns about rising insurance premiums and the anticipated provincial election appear to be driving the government agenda on this issue. The opposition Liberal Party, currently holding hearings in the province, appears to be planning equally drastic limitations on victims' rights. This despite evidence that costs of lawsuit claims have not risen more than the rate of inflation in the past few years. Plunging interest rates have cut into insurance companies' investment returns, but it appears that accident victims will pay the price of the politicians' desire to increase the profits of private insurance companies.