1.866.621.1551
Servicing Toronto, Brantford, Simcoe, Hamilton and surrounding areas.
Saturday, November 18, 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 September 2016

Seven Greatest Fictional Lawyers

Seven Greatest Fictional Lawyers

1.Atticus Finch (Gregory Peck) – To Kill a Mockingbird

Image result for atticus finch

2. Lt. Daniel Kaffee (Tom Cruise) – A Few Good Men

Image result for lt. kaffee

3. Vincent “Vinny” Gambini (Joe Pesci) – My Cousin Vinny

Image result for vincent gambini

4. Perry Mason (Raymond Burr) – Perry Mason

Image result for perry mason

5. Elle Woods (Reese Witherspoon) – Legally Blonde

Image result for elle woods

6. Harvey Specter (Gabriel Macht) – Suits

fictional lawyer 6

7. Arthur Kirkland (Al Pacino) – And Justice for All

Image result for arthur kirkland justice

This is one of the articles from Smitiuch Injury Law’s Fall 2016 Newsletter. Click here to read the complete newsletter.

Catastrophic Impairment Denial Not Subject to Limitation Period

Because a catastrophic impairment designation is not a “benefit”, as defined under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule (SABS), there is no time limitation for disputing an insurer’s denial.

On January 6 2009, Zofia Machaj submitted an Application for Determination of Catastrophic Impairment (OCF-19) to RBC Insurance.  After conducting insurer’s examinations, RBC responded on May 25, 2009, stating that, “the assessors have formed the consensus opinion that you have not sustained a catastrophic impairment and therefore you do not qualify for the increased benefits.”

In order to dispute RBC’s denial, an Application for Mediation was submitted by Ms. Machaj on July 18, 2011, which was almost two months beyond the two year limitation period that the Insurance Act stipulates is required.  Section 281.1 of the Insurance Act establishes a limitation period, provides that a mediation proceeding, “…shall be commenced within two years after the insurer’s refusal to pay the benefit claimed” (emphasis added).

In 2015, Whitten J. issued a decision on a Summary Judgment Motion in the matter of Machaj v RBC General Insurance Company [2015 ONSC 4310], wherein he found in favour of RBC Insurance and ruled that the two-year limitation applied, because the denial, “…flushed out the consequences of the denial of the status of catastrophic impairment; namely, the enhanced benefits were not available.”

Ms. Machaj appealed.  The Ontario Court of Appeal disagreed with Judge Whitten’s decision, noting that, “In our opinion, by adding the words, “and you therefore you do not qualify for the increased benefits”, the respondent insurer was doing nothing more than telling the appellant that she lacked status to claim increased benefits. The additional words did not convert what was, in substance, a denial of a catastrophic determination into a denial of the specific benefits that would trigger the commencement of the two year limitation period.”

RBC Insurance sought leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada, but it was dismissed with costs.

As such, under the current legislation, an insured person is not bound to dispute an auto insurance company’s denial of catastrophic impairment determination within two years, unlike a denial of an actual “benefit” under the SABS.

If you have been injured in an automobile accident and your insurance company has denied anything, it is always best to consult with a lawyer to ensure that your interests and entitlements are protected.

Providing Attendant Care in the Course of Employment, Occupation or Profession: Economic Loss Not Required

If an individual who is involved in a motor vehicle accident is incapable of self-care as a result of their injuries they are eligible to claim Attendant Care Benefits through their own insurance company.  The insurer is only obligated to pay the benefit if the insured person has received the goods or services, has paid or promised to pay the expense, and if the person who provided the goods and services either (A) “did so in the course of the employment, occupation or profession in which he or she would ordinarily have been engaged, but for the accident”, or (B) sustained an economic loss as a result of providing the goods or services to the insured person.  In the case of “B”, the amount payable has been limited to the amount of the economic loss sustained as a result of providing the attendant care.

The first option is normally interpreted as obligating an insurer to pay for a professional service to come into the injured person’s home to provide attendant care, such as a personal support worker.  The second option is normally interpreted as requiring an insurer to pay for any economic loss sustained by a “non-professional” (family member or friend) who provides attendant care to an injured individual.  But what if the family member or friend is a professional personal support worker?

In the Financial Services Commission of Ontario (FSCO) decision, Michael Walsh and Echelon General Insurance Company [FSCO A15-007448], Arbitrator Benjamin Drory confirmed that, if a family member or friend who is a personal support worker provides attendant care to an injured individual, they do not need to sustain an economic loss as a result of providing the attendant care and the amount of attendant care payable is not limited to the amount of any economic loss.

Arbitrator Drory made the following comments in this decision:

I find that a service provider falling into the (A) clause—i.e., one that did so in the course of the employment, occupation or profession in which he or she would ordinarily have been engaged—does not need to establish economic loss for the purpose of these provisions. This appears to have been a deliberate effort of legislative drafting, and I accept that if the legislature had intended for the provision to read differently, it could have done so.

I also accept that the legislative intent behind these provisions, as advised to me by both parties, was an intention to prevent abuse of the attendant care benefit by family members who are not trained professionally to do it.

The sole question before me is whether the services provided by Mrs. Walsh to the Applicant were done in the course of the employment, occupation or profession in which she would ordinarily have been engaged. I find that the answer is yes, based on both the case law and the legislative intention presented to me.

He goes on to make the following analogy:

If a lawyer working for salary were to offer legal services pro bono to a cause they cared about outside working hours, would they cease being a lawyer during that time because they weren’t being remunerated for it? The answer would quickly be no—and I suspect many might even be offended at the suggestion. The question of what makes one a lawyer should consider one’s ability to be remunerated for it—but it also needs to take into consideration one’s acquired knowledge and skills relevant and/or necessary to the work, and any licensing authorities involved. One does not lose their skill set or status merely because they will not be remunerated financially in undertaking a particular task. I believe the question of what makes one a PSW is analogous—and is consonant with the decisions of Garson, J. and Arbitrator Fadel. I find it in harmony with the ordinary understanding of what it means to be part of a profession, and the common day-to-day usage of that term.

It also fits with the legislature’s intention to restrict access to attendant care benefits by untrained family members and friends reflected in the 2010 and 2014 amendments. Where a family member is a trained professional working in the relevant field, concerns respecting qualification seem to be directly addressed. It would seem odd, as a matter of public policy, to mandate that insureds with trained professionals in their direct families who care for them be obligated to arrange equivalent support services from outside the family in order for it to be compensable. As Arbitrator Fadel noted, there is no restriction in clause (A) of the Schedule that mandates a professional healthcare aide be arm’s length, nor do I find it appropriate to read one into it.

This decision can be read in its entirety by clicking here.

Page 1 of 11