FSCO Tag Archives

S.K. v. Aviva Insurance Canada, 2020 CanLII 94803 (ON LAT)

In this decision, the Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) confirms that, in accordance with the Financial Services Commission of Ontario (FSCO) Superintendent’s Guideline No. 01/18 and Bulletin A-03/18, the hourly rates set out in the Form 1 are only meant to be used for the purposes of calculating monthly entitlement, and the maximum hourly rates are not to strictly apply as the maximum payable for attendant care services.

Thiruchelvam v. RBC General Insurance Company, 2022 ONSC 554

From FSCO to the LAT: Procedural Changes to Accident Benefits Disputes

  The 2015 Ontario budget announced on April 23, 2015 brings sweeping changes to the auto insurance accident benefits system. Catastrophic and non-Catastrophic funding limits were slashed, and drastic revisions to the definition of “catastrophic impairment” were proposed. There will be a huge procedural change as well; disputes under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule (“SABS”) will no longer be subject to the jurisdiction of the Financial Services …

Transition to the LAT

The LAT is set to begin receiving applications for SABS disputes on April 1. OTLA is addressing significant concerns about the transition, specifically an insured’s ability to access the new dispute resolution process.

Attendant Care Moves into the Digital Age

In recent years, the Ontario legislature has slowly eroded accident victims’ access to Attendant Care benefits available under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule (SABS). Since 2010, an accident victim must either hire a professional caregiver or prove that his/her attendant has incurred an economic loss – such as lost income – while providing attendant care. Both requirements are fraught with complications. When attendant care in …

Tompros v. Ravitharan et al, 2015 ONSC 3998

Released June 19, 2015 | CanLII This was a motion brought by Desjardins as intervener to have a coverage issue determined prior to trial regarding an excluded driver under one of its policies. The excluded driver had signed an OPCF 28A Excluded Driver form in 2007. The form had not been approved by the FSCO Superintendent, was not witnessed, and did not specify which automobiles …