Helping Those Who Need It The Most ™
News & Insights

Blog

At Smitiuch Injury Law, we dedicate our practice to helping clients through difficult periods of their lives. We handle the legal burdens while you focus on healing and your well-being.

Toronto Personal Injury Blog

MIG is Unconstitutional: FSCO

A recent arbitration decision by the Financial Services Commission of Ontario (FSCO) has ruled that the Minor Injury Guidelines within the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule (SABS) are unconstitutional. In the decision, Abyan and Sovereign General [FSCO A16-002657], Arbitrator Benjamin Drory was asked to consider whether Sections 3 and 18 of the SABS unjustifiably infringe upon Sections 7 and/or 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Arbitrator Drory noted that the Applicant has to first demonstrate that a Charter right has been infringed, and then it is up to the government to justify the infringement under Section 1 of the Charter. It was noted that it was unfortunate that no one from the government attended the hearing. In this particular case the Applicant suffered from chronic pain. The insurer, Sovereign General, had taken the position that, since the chronic pain was an "associated sequelae" from a minor injury, the MIG applied and the insured was, therefore, limited to a maximum of $3,500.00 in medical and rehabilitation benefits. The arbitrator decided that Section 7 of the Charter was not violated by the MIG, as it does not threaten his security of person, without accordance to the principles of fundamental justice. With respect to Section 15 of the Charter, Arbitrator Drory stated the following:

Federal government explores lowering the legal limit to 0.05%

As most Canadians know, the legal blood-alcohol content (BAC) limit for drivers is 80 milligrams of alcohol for every 100 millilitres of blood, or 0.08%. However, as the Toronto Star reports, that may change in the not-so-distant future as the federal government explores whether to lower the legal limit to 50 milligrams per 100 millilitres (or 0.05% BAC). While the proposal has caused some controversy, its supporters say that recent research has revealed that driving with a BAC of 0.05% can double the risk of a car accident and that other countries, including Ireland and Germany, have successfully lowered their legal limits to 0.05% and have seen a resultant dip in fatal accidents.

The New Dispute System for Accident Benefits Claims: You Lose Before You Even Begin

It is a common legal principle in civil law that the party that loses a case must pay at least some of the winner's costs, which can include legal fees and disbursements. This is based on the tenant of access to justice, which allows anyone regardless of economic resources to advance a claim against a party that has wronged him or her. In the context of the accident benefits system, it means that an injured person can advance a dispute against an insurance company and, if they are successful, their legal costs will be paid. They are not hindered in advancing a claim because they cannot afford to do so. On April 1, 2016, all disputes for accident benefits from motor vehicle accidents in Ontario were moved into a new system through the License and Appeals Tribunal (LAT) through the Ministry of the Attorney General. With a new system came new rules. One of the most concerning is Rule 19, which deals with costs.  A recent LAT decision with respect to this rule deemed that costs can only be claimed if a party has acted unreasonably, frivolously, vexatiously or in bad faith within the dispute resolution process.  In other words, as long as both parties have acted well within the dispute resolution process, costs will not be awarded, no matter how egregious an insurer might have been in denying benefits. In our view, this is totally unjust and unfair. At Smitiuch Injury Law we fully intend on appealing any adverse decisions on costs and will raise the access to justice principle in order to declare the current Rule 19 void.

Neuropsychological Assessments and the $2,000 AB Cap

In September of 2010, the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule (SABS) were amended with respect to Costs of Examinations.  A cap of $2,000.00 was placed on each assessment completed, either for the insured or the insurer. This cap has proven difficult for some more complex assessments, including neuropsychological assessments.  In order to obtain a reliable assessment the cost is well beyond $2,000.00. Many in the accident benefits community (plaintiff lawyers acting on behalf of injured victims, as well as insurers) have been getting around this cap by dividing up the assessment into two distinct assessments; normally a "psychological" assessment and a "neuropsychological" assessment.  For the most part this has been widely accepted as a way to comply with the statutory limit while getting a fairly reliable assessment report.  There have been a few insurers who have not agreed with this approach. A recent FSCO arbitration decision, Breadner and Co-operators [FSCO A15-005120] has challenged this approach. A Treatment and Assessment Plan (OCF-18) was submitted on behalf of Ms. Breadner with the following breakdown of costs:

The New Dispute System for Accident Benefits Claims: You Lose Before You Even Begin

On April 1, 2016, all disputes for accident benefits from motor vehicle accidents in Ontario were moved into a new system through the License and Appeals Tribunal (LAT) through the Ministry of the Attorney General. With a new system came new rules on the dispute resolution process. One of the most concerning is Rule 19, which deals with costs. It is a common legal principle in civil law that the party that loses a case must pay at least some of the winner's costs, which can include legal fees and disbursements (things that have been paid to third parties to advance the matter). This is based on the tenant of access to justice, which allows anyone regardless of economic resources to advance a claim against a party that has wronged him or her. In the context of the accident benefits system, it means that an injured person can advance a dispute against an insurance company and, if they are successful, their legal costs will be paid.

Chiocchio v. City of Hamilton et al.

On December 7, 2016, the Honourable Mr. Justice Skarica released his Reasons for Judgment after a trial before him in Hamilton. This action arose from a tragic motor vehicle accident which resulted in the Plaintiff (our client) being rendered a quadriplegic. The losses and damages suffered by the Plaintiff were considerable. The trial proceeded before Justice Skarica on the issue of liability only. While one of the Defendants admitted some fault for the accident, the main issue was whether the City of Hamilton was liable also. The evidence during the trial established that the intersection in question had a history of accidents and that the City failed to paint the stop line at the intersection despite the recommendation to do so. The visibility at the intersection also became poor the further back that a motorist stopped. In the end, Justice Skarica found the City of Hamilton liable and apportioned fault at 50% against the City and 50% against the Defendant driver. In finding liability against the City, Justice Skarica concluded as follows: "In my opinion, the evidence establishes that the condition of the intersection with the faded stop line posed an unreasonable risk of harm to a reasonable driver. Accordingly, I find on a balance of probabilities that the City of Hamilton failed to keep the intersection at 5th Concession West and Brock Road in a reasonable state of repair." Click here to read the full Judgment on CanLII. (Chiocchio v Ellis, 2016 ONSC 7570 (CanLII)) Peter Cho and Michael Smitiuch were trial counsel for the Plaintiffs.

Fearless Advocacy - The Dabor Trial

The lawyers, paralegals and staff at Smitiuch Injury Law continue to fearlessly advocate for their clients at both trials and arbitrations. It is the philosophy of the firm to take cases to trial where the other side fails to make a fair and reasonable settlement offer. We have conducted numerous trials and arbitrations in recent years and do not shy away from challenging liability or damages cases. The case of Dabor et al. v. Southbram Holdings Limited et al. (CV-11-417735) is one such example.   On June 3, 2016, a Toronto jury returned a verdict in favour of our clients after three weeks of trial. This action arose from the Plaintiff's fall from a metal stud located above a drop-down ceiling to the floor ten feet below. The Plaintiff suffered a comminuted calcaneous (broken heal) and continues to suffer with significant pain.   This was a unique case in that the Plaintiff was an independent contractor performing regular work at a warehouse owned and occupied by the Defendant corporations. Neither of the parties had workers' compensation coverage. It was alleged by the Defendants that the Plaintiff was the author of his own misfortune and as an experienced contractor he should have performed the work more carefully. In addition, they argued that the Plaintiff did not raise any safety concerns with the work he was being asked to perform and that he had in fact completed the same task safely one week before his fall.   Even before this case made it to trial, the Defendants had brought a summary judgment motion to try and put a stop to the lawsuit. Peter Cho of Smitiuch Injury Law successfully fought off this motion and the case continued on.   During the trial, we called numerous witnesses, including an orthopaedic surgeon, family physician, specialist pain doctor and a forensic accountant. In the end, the jury found the Defendants 38% responsible for failing to give clear instructions to the Plaintiff, failing to have a safe pathway above the ceiling and failing to provide the necessary equipment for the job. The jury assessed damages at $515,000.00 plus interest and the Plaintiffs beat the Defendants' formal offer to settle.   This verdict was significant because it serves as a warning to owners and occupiers of properties that they must ensure they have the right person to do the job and that their premises must be safe for the work intended to be performed.   Michael Smitiuch and Peter Cho were trial counsel for the Plaintiffs.

Concussions - Not a "get up and shake it off" injury

The seriousness of concussions cannot be overstated.

Health care providers are becoming more aware of the effects of concussions (also known as Acquired Brain Injury - ABI).  What was once a, "get up and shake it off" occurrence, has now become a proper assessment with protocols for monitoring the status of the individual as they return to work or sports. ABI is a physical injury to the brain (concussions). It can be caused by a blow to the head, severe rotation of the neck or whiplash, or even from a lack of oxygen. Over 160,000 Canadians suffer brain injuries every year and, with better reporting, that number gets more accurate and thus keeps rising.

  • Contact Our Personal Injury And Disability Benefits Lawyers For A Free Consultation
  • Get the answers that you need, free of charge. We offer a no-risk initial consultation to clients across Toronto, Brantford, Simcoe, Hamilton, and the GTA.

    Get A Free Consultation

Toronto Office
3280 Bloor Street West
Centre Tower, Suite 800
Toronto, Ontario M8X 2X3

Toll Free: 866-621-1551
Phone: 416-621-1551
Fax: 416-621-1558
Map & Directions

Brantford Office
330 West Street
Unit 6
Brantford, Ontario N3R 7V5

Phone: 519-754-1558
Fax: 519-754-1580
Map & Directions

Hamilton Office
1 Hunter Street East
Hamilton, Ontario L8N 3W1

Phone: 519-426-9332
Fax: 519-754-1580
Map & Directions

Simcoe Office
16 Norfolk Street South
Simcoe, Ontario N3Y 2V9

Phone: 905-777-7907
Fax: 416-621-1558
Map & Directions

Scroll To The Top