Servicing Toronto, Brantford, Simcoe, Hamilton and surrounding areas.
Tuesday, April 25, 2017


Subscribe to Blog via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Archive for May 2011

It’s bicycle season!

It’s bicycle season! The weather is getting warmer (and dryer?) and the end of school is in sight, perfect reasons to dust off the old wheels and take to the road. But before our kids do, we as parents need to remind them about bike safety and wearing a helmet. Wearing a helmet is not just a matter of having something on your head, it needs to fit properly and it needs to be worn correctly.

The Ontario Trial Lawyers Association (www.otla.com) started an initiative in 2002 called “Helmets on Kids”. The program is intended to put a helmet on every child who needs one, provide safety education and awareness about bicycle helmet use. Participating OTLA members distribute, free of charge, new helmets through their local community partners. Since 2002, over 12,000 helmets have been distributed and this year 250 helmets while be distributed in Brantford by Smitiuch Injury Law and the Children’s Safety Village of Brant (www.csvbrant.ca).

Wearing a bicycle helmet is important. According to OTLA:

• Bicycle helmets can reduce the risk of a brain injury by up to 88%.
• It is the law in Ontario that children under the age of 18 MUST wear a bicycle helmet while riding a bicycle on the road or sidewalks.
• Helmets more than 5 years old should be replaced because they lose their protective abilities over time.
• You should replace your helmet if it has been in a hard fall or crash or has been dropped on a hard surface even if there is no visible damage.
• Baseball caps, hats, headphones, large hairclips and other such items should not be worn under a bicycle helmet.

So before your children take to the streets on their bicycles this summer, make sure they are wearing a helmet!

Public Transit Motor Vehicle Accidents about to Become “Non-Accidents”

On March 29, 2011, the Ontario Legislature unveiled its pre-election budget, in Bill 173, otherwise known as the Better Tomorrow for Ontario Act (Budget Measures), 2011. The Budget didn’t raise any eyebrows. The Canadian Press reported:
There’s “not a single new tax cut or credit to be found, just a smattering of strategic investments that will provide insurance for more farmers, expand breast cancer screenings and add new college and university spaces.”
But Schedule 21 of Bill 173 contains some proposed changes to the Insurance Act that are bound to cause a stir in the insurance industry: Firstly, a passenger injured in a public transit vehicle, which has not collided with an automobile or other object, will no longer be entitled to claim accident benefits under section 268 of the Insurance Act as a result of the incident. Meanwhile, the owner and driver of the public transit vehicle will no longer be considered “protected defendants” under section 267.5 of the Act. Schedule 21 provides:
3. (4) Section 267.5 of the Act is amended by adding the following subsection:
Same, public transit vehicles
(6.1) In respect of an incident that occurs on or after the date this subsection comes into force, subsections (1), (3) and (5) do not protect the owner or driver of a public transit vehicle if it did not collide with another automobile or any other object in the incident.
4. Section 268 of the Act is amended by adding the following subsection:
Exception, public transit vehicles
(1.1) Despite subsection (1) and the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule, no statutory accident benefits are payable in respect of an occupant of a public transit vehicle, in respect of an incident that occurs on or after the date this subsection comes into force, if the public transit vehicle did not collide with another automobile or any other object in the incident.
The “no crash, no cash” scheme will work as follows: Where no collision or crash has occurred, any tort claims for injuries against a public transit authority (owner or driver) would be covered and addressed within the tort system. The plaintiff would no longer need to establish a threshold injury and there would be no damages deductible. But they also would not be entitled to any accident benefits from any insurer (neither there own, nor the public transit’s insurer, nor the insurer of any other vehicle involved in the accident).
The purpose behind the proposed changes is obvious: These days, almost any injury that occurs to a passenger on a bus is an “accident” that entitles the person to access accident benefits. According to FSCO arbitrators, almost any incident that happens once a passenger leaves a bus (even meters away from the bus) is also an “accident”. Often the claimant won’t be covered under any other insurance (might be one reason that they take the bus), so such accident benefit claims would fall to the insurer of the public transit vehicle. Often such incidents aren’t reported at the scene and the transit company isn’t even aware of such incident until their insurer receives an application for accident benefits.
So it is clear the Legislature (and public transit) is, among other things, trying to crack down on suspicious accident benefit claims by passengers who get injured while riding the bus (or streetcar). The changes will likely save the insurers of public transit sizable amounts of money each year by not having to pay any accident benefits in incidents that do not involve a collision.
The proposed changes could cause some problems for automobile insurers. For example, suppose Nick is on the bus waiting to get off at the next stop. As the bus approaches the stop, suddenly a car changes lanes and forces the bus driver to slam on the brakes. Nick falls and gets hurt. There is no contact between the vehicles.
Under the current scheme, Nick would be able to claim accident benefits. He would also sue the public transit company/driver and the owner/driver of the other vehicle (if the identity is known, or perhaps Nick’s own insurer under the unidentified motorist provisions of his policy, if he has one).
But under the proposed scheme, Nick would not be entitled to claim accident benefits as a result of this incident. He would still be able to sue the public transit company/driver and the driver of the vehicle that cut off the bus. The public transit company would not be a protected defendant under section 267.5 of the Insurance Act, which would make up for the loss of accident benefits that Nick couldn’t claim (no threshold, no deductibles, etc).
It appears that the owner and driver of the other vehicle would still be “protected” under section 267.5. However, their insurer would not get a “discount” for any accident benefits that Nick would have received under the current scheme as result of the accident — since he would not be entitled to claim any.

Page 1 of 11