This hearing before the Licence Appeal Tribunal dealt primarily with the issue of whether the Applicant’s injuries were predominantly minor within the meaning of the SABS. The Applicant submitted a number of medical and rehabilitation treatment plans above the $3,500.00 available under the MIG for claimants with predominantly minor injuries…
mva Tag Archives
Solanki v. Reilly, 2021 ONSC 6694
In this case, the Ontario Superior Court recently considered whether two Plaintiffs sustained permanent and serious impairments of important physical, mental or psychological functions caused by a motor vehicle accident in accordance with the Insurance Act…
Sabanadze v. Joseph, 2021 ONSC 6744 (CanLII)
In this case, the Plaintiffs are individuals who were injured after a Greyhound bus they were riding in as passengers ploughed into the rear of a tanker truck and became entangled in a multi-vehicle collision on highway 417, in the Province of Ontario, on January 27, 2014. The litigation involved as much as twenty-six (26) defendants at one time.
How Many People Actually Buy Optional Accident Benefits?
In Ontario, the standard no-fault Accident Benefit coverage for Catastrophic injuries (i.e. the most serious injuries) is $1M for all Medical, Rehabilitation and Attendant Care services. That amount is not enough to protect you if you are catastrophically injured. For an extra cost, you can buy an extra $1M of coverage (increasing your coverage to $2M)…
Aviva Insurance Company of Canada v. Danay Suarez, 2021 ONSC 6200
The Divisional Court decision of Aviva v. Suarez is a recent SABS decision that has important ramifications for the public pertaining to the access to injury victims of benefits provided for in the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule…
Shafique v. Cowie and Pereira, 2021 ONSC 3032
The defendant brought a motion pursuant to Rule 26.02(c) of the Rules of Civil Procedure for an order granting the defendants leave to amend their statements of defence to plead the legal doctrine of spoliation. Justice Turnbull J. adjourned the motion so that the defendant could return with a proper evidentiary basis to support the motion.