In the recent case of Ahmed v. Aviva Insurance Company, Aviva Insurance Company proceeded with a motion to dismiss an application as abandoned, despite previous counsel’s death and the applicant’s personal barriers, and was found by Vice Chair Maedel to have acted in bad faith. In the result, the motion was dismissed and Aviva was ordered to pay costs to the applicant…
In this case, the Respondent, J.A. was injured in a motor vehicle accident in February 2005. He applied for accident benefits through his insurer, Aviva. In 2015, around the time when his medical rehabilitation benefits were expiring, he applied for catastrophic impairment determination. Although Aviva found there was insufficient medical documentation, it nonetheless conducted its CAT assessments which later found he was not catastrophically impaired…
In this case, the insurer was ordered to pay special award for unreasonably held or delayed payment of IRBs after ignoring severity of psychological impairments and reports of its own assessors…
In this case, Aviva subjected to pay order for unreasonably withheld or delayed payments for having “stubbornly maintained its denial and forced a hearing where it, for the first time post-accident, raised causation issues”…
In this case, entitlement to After-The-Event Legal Protection Insurance Policy funds Awarded to the Insurer.
Billed as an evolution to modern transportation, Uber has inspired global debate about whether the company’s ridesharing application cuts corners on regulatory rules, and what effect this has on the taxi industry and public at large. A proposed policy by Aviva Canada seeks to respond to the company’s uncertain insurance coverage for ridesharing drivers and their passengers. A major problem with using Uber is the …
