Courts show growing willingness to award damages when Charter rights are violated

Article
September 18, 2017
Read Time: 5 minutes

This article originally appeared in The Lawyers Daily on September 11, 2017, published by LexisNexis Canada Inc. The Supreme Court of Canada opened the door in 2010 for plaintiffs to seek damages from the government based on breaches of their rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (“the Charter“). In Ward v. Vancouver (City), 2010 SCC… Read more »

Understanding Non-economic Loss and Permanent Impairment

Article
November 2, 2012
Read Time: 4 minutes

Workers who have a work-related permanent impairment are eligible for Non-Economic Loss (NEL) benefits. This award recognizes the permanent effects of a workplace injury on a worker’s life outside of work. This award is not meant to compensate for monetary loss (like wages) caused by the workplace injury; rather, it is meant to compensate for general loss of functioning caused by a permanent injury.

Patient Beware and Be Prepared

Article
January 1, 2010
Read Time: 6 minutes

Primum non nocere or “first, do no harm” is an essential maxim and underlying goal of modern medicine. For the health care practitioner, it is a reminder that even the best intentioned conduct can result in injury to the patient and the effectiveness of the maxim is measured by studying “adverse events” in hospitals and other health care settings.

Appeal Court Enforces Timelines Under Accident Benefits Legislation

Article
January 1, 2009
Read Time: 3 minutes

Ontario’s Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule (SABS) provides for prescribed time limits under various sections of its regulations. A failure to comply does not necessarily disentitle claimants to benefits in the event that they can establish a reasonable explanation or a reasonable excuse for their failure to do so. Relief from forfeiture is available under s.129 of the Insurance Act where there has been imperfect compliance with a statutory condition, but it is a discretionary remedy.

Forum dictates information accident victims must provide

Article
July 12, 2007
Read Time: 3 minutes

The personal injury bar has been left in a unique conundrum in the wake of a recent Divisional Court decision regarding the implied undertaking rule. The rights of their clients in regard to the rule will be treated differently whether they proceed through the courts or the Financial Services Commission of Ontario (FSCO).

Proper preparation can mean a winning case in medical malpractice

Article
April 29, 2005
Read Time: 4 minutes

The words invoke dread and fear for doctors and lawyers alike. It’s an area of law so replete with myth and illusion that most new lawyers are outright discouraged from dipping their toe into such purportedly dangerous waters. Yet despite the inherent difficulties of prosecuting a medical malpractice claim, with the proper preparation and management, even an unseasoned or inexperienced lawyer can feel confident working in this field.

Same limitation period held to apply to both types of claims

Article
April 4, 2003
Read Time: 3 minutes

In 1997, the Supreme Court of Canada, in Peixeiro v. Haberman held that the discoverability principle applied to the “threshold” contained in the Insurance Act. At that time, persons injured in a motor vehicle accident were only able to sue for general damages, and the claim could only be maintained if the injured person met the threshold which required a “serious disfigurement” or a “serious impairment of an important physical, mental or psychological function.” Under the present Bill 59, a plaintiff must still meet the “threshold” in order to maintain an action for general damages, but is entitled to sue for any pecuniary loss arising as a result of the motor vehicle accident.