1.866.621.1551
Servicing Toronto, Brantford, Simcoe, Hamilton and surrounding areas.
Friday, December 2, 2016

 
 
 

 
Subscribe to Blog via Email

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

Motor Vehicle Accidents

FSCO Announces Amendments to SABS, Service Provider Regulations, etc.

The Financial Services Commission of Ontario (FSCO) has released a bulletin announcing changes to the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule (SABS), service provider regulations, administrative penalties and eligibility for transportation expenses.

Below are the highlights:

  • Effective December 1, 2014, both licensed and unlicensed service providers and provide goods and service to auto insurance claimants.  Licensed service providers can receive payment directly from insurers, which unlicensed service providers cannot.  Unlicensed providers must complete the OCF-21 form (Auto Insurance Standard Invoice) on HCAI, print it, and provide a copy to the claimant.
  • Effective January 1, 2015, the current interest rate of 1% per month, compounded monthly, will continue to apply.  However, once a mediation proceeding has commenced, the interest rate will then change to the prejudgement interest rate described in the Courts of Justice Act for past pecuniary loss.  This will be calculated from the date on which a mediation proceeding commenced and ending on the date a settlement is reached or a decision is issued.  The current prejudgement interest rate is 1.3% per annum.
  • It is now considered to be an unfair or deceptive act or practice if an unlicensed provider advertises as a licensed provider.
  • There is now an exemption allowing licensed service providers to seek direct payment for a listed expense provided under the SABS from anyone other than an insurer.
  • Specifies penalties for non-compliance with the newly added requirements.
  • Reminds insurers that “authorized transportation expenses” apply only expenses incurred by the insured person or an aide.  It notes that service provider mileage costs are subject to FSCO’s Professional Service Guidelines, which states that insurers are not liable for any other costs beyond what is permitted under the Professional Service Guideline.

The bulletin can be read in full at the following link:

http://www.fsco.gov.on.ca/en/auto/autobulletins/2014/Pages/a-14-14.aspx

Genie Boom Crane is an “Automobile”: FSCO Arbitrator

Note: This decision was overturned on appeal.

A new arbitration decision from the Financial Services Commission of Ontario (FSCO) has determined that a “Genie Boom Crane” is an “automobile” under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The decision, Joseph Beattie and Unifund Assurance Company [FSCO A13-005289], describes the Genie as, “a four-wheeled mobile crane, propelled by its own motor”, which is used to elevate a worker to perform a maintenance function.

In this particular case, the Applicant, Mr. Beattie, was operating the crane on a private parking lot.  The ground level collapsed into the level below, injuring him.  Mr. Beattie applied for accident benefits through his own insurance company, Unifund Assurance.  Unifund took the position that the crane was not an “automobile” at the time and place when the structure collapsed and was, therefore, not an “accident”.

The arbitrator found that, since the crane was a “vehicle propelled or driven otherwise than by muscular power” and did not meet the specific exclusions under the section of the Highway Traffic Act, it was a vehicle.  Since it was used off-road, it did not require compulsory insurance, thereby not making it subject to the provisions of the Insurance Act.

The entire decision can be read by clicking on the link below.

Beattie and Unifund – Genie Boom – Accident

FSCO Releases New Professional Services Guideline

The Financial Services Commission of Ontario (FSCO) has released an updated Professional Services Guideline, which applies to expenses related to services provided by health care providers rendered on or after September 6, 2014.

A copy of the new guideline can be found at the link below.

2014 FSCO Fee Guidelines

New OCF Forms to be used effective November 1, 2014

The Financial Services Commission of Ontario (FSCO) has released two bulletins with new forms to be used for accident benefits claims, effective November 1, 2014.

The new forms include the Application for Accident Benefits (OCF-1), Treatment and Assessment Plan (OCF-18), Auto Insurance Standard Invoice (OCF-21) and the Treatment Confirmation Form (OCF-23).

In a bulletin released by FSCO it was indicated that the reason for these changes is “to improve transparency and clarity regarding data analytics and pooling of information to detect fraud.  The OCF-23 has also been revised to accommodate Service Provider Licensing.”

These new forms can be downloaded at the links below:

OCF-1 – Effective Nov 1, 2014

OCF-18 – Effective November 1, 2014

OCF-21 – Effective November 1, 2014

OCF-23 – Effective November 1, 2014

FSCO Decision Reinforces Viability of Retrospective Attendant Care Needs Assessments (Form 1’s)

A new arbitration decision from the Financial Services Commission of Ontario (FSCO) affirms previous decisions that a retrospective attendant care needs assessment (commonly referred to as a “Form 1”) are viable.

In the decision Stephanie Kelly and Guarantee Company of North America [FSCO A12-006663], Arbitrator John Wilson affirmed that Ms. Kelly is entitled to payment for supplementary attendant care services, to be reimbursed for the cost for the Form 1 assessment, interest, and her expenses in the matter.

Ms. Kelly suffered catastrophic injuries and required one-to-one attendant care while in hospital.  Her family was, understandably, not in a position to know that a Form 1 was required to be completed to determine the amount of attendant care needs she required by use of a Form 1.  Once they were aware that one needed to be completed they retained an occupational therapist, who then completed a retrospective assessment.

In considering The Guarantee’s position that no attendant care benefit is payable prior to a Form 1 being submitted to an insurer, Arbitrator Wilson relied on a previous arbitration decision, T.N. and The Personal, wherein Arbitrator Bayefsky stated the following:

This does not, in my view, mean that an insured forfeits their right to attendant care benefits, or that an insurer is released of any obligation to pay attendant care benefits, prior to the Form 1 being submitted. In my view, significantly stronger statutory language would be required to effect this purpose. The section as it now reads simply ensures the orderly determination of a person’s need for attendant care (in accordance with a proper attendant care needs assessment), and protects an insurer from having to determine what it should pay in the absence of a specific and legitimate attendant care needs assessment.

The decision can be read in its entirety by clicking on the link below.

Kelly and Guarantee

Bus Passes or Tickets constitute an “Economic Loss”: FSCO

The Financial Services Commission of Ontario (FSCO) has released an arbitration decision that confirms that the purchase of bus passes or tickets by a non-professional for the provision of housekeeping and home maintenance, as well as caregiving services and (arguably) attendant care, constitutes “economic loss” under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule (SABS).

On September 1, 2010, the accident benefits legislation was changed so that non-professionals (i.e., those who have not provided the services in the course of the employment, occupation or profession in which he or she would ordinarily have been engaged, but for the accident) could only be reimbursed for the services they provided if they had incurred an economic loss.  The term “economic loss” was not defined within the regulations.

In the decision Asokumaran and TD Home (FSCO A12-007443) Arbitrator Susan Alves noted that it was submitted that the insured’s friend purchased bus tickets and/or passes to travel to the insured’s home.  Both parties agreed to submit to a preliminary issue on whether or not these expenses would constitute an “economic loss”.  The arbitrator did not address whether or not these expenses were incurred to provide the housekeeping and caregiver services and that issue will be decided at the main arbitration hearing.

What is clear from this decision is the rejection of a de minimis requirement (that is, that there is a possible minimum amount required for an economic loss argument to be established).  The insurer in this case relied heavily on a previous arbitration decision, Simser and Aviva Canada, which was generally restrictive with respect to broader-use definitions of what constitutes an economic loss.  Arbitrator Alves noted the following:

In Simser and Aviva Canada Inc., (FSCO A11-004610, January 16, 2013), the hearing arbitrator adopted the definition of economic loss from Black’s Law Dictionary and held that economic loss as applied in the Schedule must relate to some form of financial or monetary loss. This conclusion was not disturbed on appeal.
At the Simser hearing, the applicant had significant evidentiary difficulties in establishing the various losses claimed. For example, the hearing arbitrator described the evidence adduced at the hearing as vague and lacking in detail, lacking documentary evidence from the service provider’s employer, despite numerous requests from the insurer, and that there was a failure to link the expense or loss to the attendant care claimed. With respect to some of the out-of-pocket expenses, the arbitrator held that they were de minimis and therefore did not amount to economic loss.
I am not persuaded that the expenditure of $5,048 in this case is de minimis. The Court of Appeal in [Gore v.] Henry rejected any de minimis requirement for an expense to qualify as economic loss. On this point, on appeal, Delegate Blackman noted that the hearing arbitrator in Simser adopted the de minimis approach taken by the trial judge in Henry v. Gore Mutual. However, the arbitrator did not have the benefit of the Court of Appeal’s decision rejecting the de minimis approach at the time he issued his decision.
What is clear from these cases is that a loss of wages or a loss of income will qualify as an economic loss. I am not persuaded by the Insurer’s submission in this case, that the term economic loss should be read restrictively so that only those losses will qualify. Had the legislature intended to restrict economic loss to wage loss or loss of income, it could have so stated. Insurance coverage provisions are to be interpreted broadly, while coverage exclusions or restrictions are to be construed narrowly in favour of the insured.  In my view, the Applicant has demonstrated that funds were expended by her friend and service provider in the amount of $5,048 to purchase bus tickets and/or passes in order for her to travel to the Applicant’s home. The purchases involved the expenditure of funds by the service provider, were a monetary loss to her and therefore qualify as an economic loss within the meaning of the Schedule.

The decision can be read in its entirety by clicking on the link below.

Asokumaran and TD – Economic Loss

Balance needed between interests of drivers, insurers

June 2, 2014

Balance needed between interests of drivers, insurers

While the future of a bill meant to address pressing concerns in the auto insurance system is unknown, the issues persist, and drivers are still in need of cost-saving solutions, says Toronto personal injury lawyer Peter Cho.

The Liberal government’s Bill 171, the Fighting Fraud and Reducing Automobile Insurance Rates Act, passed second reading in April, and proposed making several changes to the auto insurance dispute resolution system. The bill is now effectively dead as the legislature has dissolved for the June 12 election.

Cho, associate with Smitiuch Injury Law, said he’s glad to see Bill 171 go by the wayside, but as long as auto insurance rates remain an issue in Ontario, another version of the bill is likely to be presented in the near future.

Read the complete article at: Advocatedaily.com

Contact Peter Cho for further information.

Why Ontario drivers pay the highest insurance premiums in Canada

Auto Insurance

Why Ontario drivers pay the highest insurance premiums in Canada

ROBERT COLLISON

Special to The Globe and Mail

Published

Insurance

The Fraser Institute’s landmark 2011 study on public-versus-private delivery of auto insurance in Canada concluded that Ontario’s private-sector insurance regimen enjoyed the questionable distinction of being the most expensive in the country – a conclusion even more damning because the report’s major takeaway was the overall superiority of the private system in other parts of Canada.

Read the complete article in the Globe and Mail.

 

The Winter 2014 issue of disclosure is now available

Get the facts and the truth about some common Traffic Law Myths. Did you know that a traffic ticket cannot simply be dropped even if there was a mistake made on the ticket?Winter 2014 Newsletter Cover

 

Do you have a favourite lawyer joke? Is it in our list of PG rated jokes?

 

Although the annual number of impaired driving charges is down, it only takes one impaired driver to cause a traffic incident and destroy a family for life. Read about FAID and Smitiuch Injury Law’s support of the Freeze the Keys campaign.

 

These are just a few of the interesting articles in this issue.

 

The newsletter is available on our website or to request a hardcopy please call 1-866-621-1551 or email us at [email protected]

Aviva Canada Penalized for not Producing Someone With Authority

The Financial Services Commission of Ontario (FSCO) has released a Pre-Arbitration Hearing Decision regarding Aviva Canada’s failure to have anyone from the insurer with authority available to resolve an accident benefits claim.

In the decision, Dabrowska and Aviva [FSCO A13-007793] a pre-arbitration discussion was held on February 27, 2014, and counsel for both parties reached an agreement on a “modest resolution” of the insured’s accident benefits claim.  While Aviva had legal counsel and a representative present at the discussion, neither of them had authority to approve the settlement and no one with authority was available by either telephone or email.

Arbitrator John Wilson found Aviva in violation of Section 279(5) of the Insurance Act, which reads as follows:

If an insurer or an insured is represented in a mediation under section 280, an evaluation under section 280.1, an arbitration under section 282, an appeal under section 283 or a variation proceeding under section 284, the mediator, person performing the evaluation, arbitrator or Director, as the case may be, may adjourn the proceeding, with or without conditions, if the representative is not authorized to bind the party he or she represents.

The Arbitrator made the following comments:

“Authorized to bind” in the Act means that the representative never has to pick up the telephone to get instructions. Binding authority does not exist where the representative merely has authority to say “no” with no room to vary that position should further information be made available.
This pre-hearing was not a surprise to Aviva. It received the appropriate notices. Indeed, it sent an in-house counsel and an experienced representative, neither with any authority to do more than attend the pre-hearing.
The requirements of the Insurance Act should not have been a surprise to Aviva either. It has a legal department which appears frequently at FSCO arbitrations and pre-arbitrations, and should have been in a position to be aware of its responsibilities under section 279 of the Act and the related jurisprudence.3 Aviva is a sophisticated player and should have known better.

As a result Aviva was ordered to pay the time for the legal representative to prepare and attend the pre-hearing, as well as the actual travel expenses for the insured.

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

Page 2 of 912345...Last »