Saturday, June 28, 2014

Should blogging be a reason for denial of benefits?



Dear Social Security Tribunal:

I have been pondering about your idea -that because i can blog about my claim, email, and fax letters, it is going to be assumed that I can work doing these things.

If I could, I would, is there such a job for me?
Lol my resume can also include that I can Facebook and Twitter.

Seriously, and most importantly should blogging be a reason for denial of benefits?

As you know after the fatal crash I have acquired a gift of writing. It may take days or even weeks for me to write as I mix up letters of the alphabet because of the crash. In my medical-legal-insurance case file you will find these results during medical testing. This writing obsession gives me a avenue to release my frustrations with the unfair, one sided, corrupt, insurance systems. It has been my only justice since the fatal crash -when an 18 year old slammed into me with his head-on with his car at 102km per hour, with the airbag going off in the side of my head, rolling 8 times, hitting a tree, and trapped upside down in the twisted wreck.

Regarding comments made in their denial letter by Service Canada about a laptop I have the following:
The Medical rehabilitation testing that I went threw suggested that I be trained and provided a laptop computer. My insurer concurred. These things are in my medical-legal-insurance case file and were provided to you (free of charge). Both training and the laptop were never provided. Service Canada has used the laptop for an excuse to justify denial of benefits. It is unwarranted. As you know by my previous writing similarly I was also not provided with a tractor. Service Canada it seems can just say what ever the hell they want to in their denial letters.

When I enquired about the laptop and training that was granted by my insurer I was told “you snooze you loose”. I was dismayed by what I was told, another words fuckyou. But they did provide there preferred wordhirlings almost $100,000 to write bogus paper trails for their agenda of not paying benefits.

I have been made to suffer with the abuses of the insurance world for 7 years now without losing my family or the stress killing me. 7 years of denials, interrogations, surveillance, doctors, and lawyers. 7 years of intentional deceptive acts by the insurance world. 7 years of this shit. Wouldn’t you be kinda pissed off too, and want to fix things?

I understand the consequences of going public and that I may not ever be granted CPP Disability Benefits because I pissed you off. But there is more at stake here. Familys are living in financial hell. A lot of people like myself that have been made to live this way by these unjust denials by the insurance systems.

10,000 cases of appeals at the Social Security Tribunal in limbo! Please know that I do understand the concept of people creating there own work to keep them in a job. But all these backlogs by FSCO and the Social Security Tribunal, for years, unjust denials against sick and injured victims, really? What does that say as a society that the most vulnerable in our society are being treated in this manner? Is there no shame in what your office is doing? Victims are losing everything because of these denial processes. Who is running this nut house you call the Social Security Tribunal?

For your viewing I have included a link to my new blog SSTRC.

I called it “ The Social Security Tribunal Research Centre” it is dedicated to providing information to the public about your office. It can be found at http://sstrc.blogspot.ca/ .

At this point you may be wondering about my confrontational position since we spoke on the phone.

To clarify, I stumbled upon a blog called CPP Disability Claims Advocate located at www.dcac.ca/blog. It is very informative . To put it mildly it showed me that you have not been forthcoming. Do you have anything to tell me after you read this blog of Social Security Tribunal horrors?

This claims process should not be debilitating to injured victims, I have enough problems with injurys I sustained in the crash that was not my fault, can you really blame me for becoming an advocate for change? I will re-establish communications with media sources and establish communications with new media sources. I will write, blog, publish, fax, email, and further piss you off. Sorry - I think you are an ok person in a bad situation (less the $91,800 - $231,500 a year salary you receive).

In accordance with the Access to Information and Privacy Act, applicants have the right to formally request a copy of their CPP Disability file, including the medical reports and supporting documents.

I FORMALLY REQUEST A COPY OF MY CPP DISABILITY FILE AS OF THE DATE OF THIS DOCUMENT

I FORMALLY REQUEST a PRE-HEARING prior to a Ministerial Enquiry.

I kindly ask you to please not allow Service Canada to continue treating my claim for benefit maliciously. Have they still not sent my file to you? Please poll them for their intentions and expedite this scripted fiasco. My list of important documents should be everything that I have sent you so far, including faxes and emails. I still require your office to acknowledge receipt. Everything I sent you is relevant.

You have enough medical evidence I sent you to make a reasonable decision in my claim and anyone with any common sense just looking at the newspaper articles and crash pictures should give you some inclination as to how fatal the crash was that caused my disabilitys. Service Canada refused to look or acknowledge the newspaper articles and crash pictures I sent them, and your office has done the same. What kind of investigation is it not to even look at the pictures of the crash that cause my disabilitys?

Please put an end to these bullshit denials I am bitter, fedup, pissed off, and now feel that my claim is hopeless. Does this government want all the disabled on welfare? Evidence so far suggests that it wont matter if I stop advocating right now anyway, it won't change what is going to happen to my claim at the end of the day. But I will get louder and louder the longer this takes in hopes that someone fix this process for the victims. We deserve better than victim abuse limbo and financial hardship.

I feel that I survived the crash and have been given this gift of writing for a reason. That reason is to expose my journey threw the insurance system and go public with my findings. Perhaps My writing can help others to endure the abuses of the insurance systems for we are the people that pay into these mandatory systems for many decades and deserve to be acknowledged, helped, and properly without delay given the tools to try to recover as best we can.

Looking forward to hearing from you in this regard as soon as possible. Thank you.

Sincerely,
Mr. xxxx xxxxxx

Crash Victim 2007 -
Insurance Victim – 2014

Cc: undisclosed

Friday, June 27, 2014

Not reasonable for insurance companies to waste money fighting policy holders

Reasonableness and common sense go a long way in preventing disputes and litigation.

Those are attributes we sometimes find in short supply at insurance companies.

Take the case of Grzegorz Zaprzala who was injured in July, 2009.

He had disability insurance through his employer, Hooper Welding Enterprises.

His disability application was approved with benefits of $3,000 per month commencing in November, 2009.

Every disability insurance policy has an offset provision. Certain specified sources of income are required to be offset or deducted from the disability benefits.

Among the many offsets are CPP disability benefits.

It is customary for disability insurance policies to require those receiving disability benefits to apply for CPP disability benefits.

Any CPP disability benefits obtained are then deducted from the insurer’s disability payments.

If the person receiving benefits doesn’t apply for CPP disability benefits, the insurance company is entitled to reduce its disability benefits by the estimated amount of the CPP benefits that could have been obtained.

In this case, Zaprzala’s application for CPP benefits was denied.
He requested reconsideration of the decision but once again his application was denied.

His insurance company, Manulife Financial, told him he had an obligation to appeal the denial to the CPP Review Tribunal, even though there wasn’t anything in the insurance policy that specifically spelled out such an obligation.
Before the appeal was launched Manulife prepared a document and told Zaprzala to sign it.

The document stated Manulife would continue to pay the disability benefits without deduction of any estimated CPP benefits, provided that Zaprzala agreed to reimburse Manulife for any subsequent CPP benefits award.

But Manulife had an obligation to continue making the disability payments pending the appeal.

They had no right to deduct estimated CPP disability benefits after his applications had been rejected.

Zaprzala hired a lawyer to handle the appeal to the CPP Review Tribunal. The appeal was successful and Zaprzala was awarded about $34,000 in retroactive CPP benefits.

But his lawyer charged him about half that amount, leaving Zaprzala with a net gain of about $17,000.

Zaprzala offered to pay the net amount of $17,000, to Manulife.

Sounds reasonable to me.

After all, Manulife told Zaprzala to appeal and they received the benefit of the legal work.

No one told him not to retain a lawyer and it was certainly foreseeable he would have to hire a lawyer.

But Manulife wanted the full benefit of the $34,000 CPP payment.

And since they controlled the disability benefit payments, they stopped making payments to Zaprzala until they recovered the full $34,000.

They say that was their contractual right because the insurance policy didn’t say anything about allowing Zaprzala to hire a lawyer and the offset provision of the policy allowed them to deduct the entire CPP payment.

Zaprzala sued, seeking punitive damages, claiming Manulife shouldn’t have deducted the full CPP benefit.

Manulife responded to the lawsuit with a court motion seeking to dismiss it prior to trial on a summary basis, arguing it was plain and obvious the lawsuit could not succeed.

The motion was heard before a judge of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in February and a decision was released earlier this month dismissing the motion.

Justice Theresa Maddalena ruled the lawsuit could continue, that it wasn’t plain and obvious the lawsuit couldn’t succeed.

A ruling on the amount of Zaprzala’s legal fees to be paid by Manulife has not yet been released.

Whether the lawsuit will continue or be settled remains to be seen, but it is clear Manulife has or will soon have incurred expenses far in excess of the initial amount in issue, $17,000.

A little dose of common sense or reasonableness could have avoided this legal mess.

But as has often been said, common sense isn’t so common.

source:  By ,Toronto Sun
First posted: | Updated:

Tuesday, June 10, 2014

Employment Insurance investigators quota of denials

Published on Nov 27, 2013
 
In July 2013 Sylvie Therrien was suspended without pay for revealing that she, like other Employment Insurance investigators, was subject to a quota: to achieve savings of nearly $500,000 per year by denying EI benefits to applicants. In order to achieve these quotas, many deserving EI claimants were being harassed and improperly penalized, she said.

Therrien felt that she could not 'send people to the street' in order to meet these arbitrary targets, but was soon perilously close to the street herself. The government fired her for cause, which means that she would receive no EI assistance, and stripped her of her security clearance, rendering her unemployable in the public service. Unable to afford her rent, she found shelter sleeping on a friend's couch.


source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1j9n6ZE3P_w 


EI fraud investigator axed for leaking “quota” details


The federal fraud investigator who leaked documents exposing a Conservative crackdown on those receiving EI has been fired from her job.

Sylvie Therrien, 53, who worked out of a Vancouver office, learned Tuesday that she has been terminated from her position.

The letter, sent on behalf of an executive with what is now called Employment and Social Development Canada, informed Therrien that her “reliability status’’ had been revoked, and therefore she no longer met the conditions for her job.

In May she was suspended without pay after leaking documents to the media in February. The documents showed that EI investigators had been told by the government to crack down on about $485,000 in EI fraud each year.

In July Therrien told the Star the “fraud quotas’’ were just one aspect of a culture in her office that encouraged cutting benefits from as many recipients as possible to save money.

She says she was penalized for not meeting her monthly quota. She claimed she was encouraged by managers to interpret facts in a way that would trim EI benefits.

She says that she had complained to her supervisors about what was happening, but then was “targeted’’ and became viewed as “the enemy.’’

The Conservative government says the dollar amounts aren’t quotas, but rather targets.
“I hoped (the firing) wouldn’t happen, that they would do what is right and realize what I did was OK. But they obviously decided otherwise,’’ Therrien said in an interview Thursday, referring to her now ex-employers.

She has run out of money to support herself, and is living with a friend. Her own EI — which she was forced to go on after her suspension — ran out Oct. 19. She’s hoping to land some occasional work with a school board. She intends to fight to get her job back through the grievance procedure.

In response yesterday, James Gilbert, an assistant deputy minister with Service Canada, a part of Employment and Social Development Canada, reiterated Ottawa’s position that if Therrien wanted to express her opinion or raise concerns regarding her work, she had many appropriate avenues available to her.

“Instead, Ms. Therrien went directly to the press and provided documents that were not authorized for public disclosure,’’ Gilbert said in a statement to the Star.

“Service Canada’s public servants work hard to ensure that EI payments are calculated and paid correctly and that the system is used as intended. Service Canada employees do not face consequences for missing so-called quotas,” Gilbert added.

He went on to say that as most organizations do, Service Canada sets “objectives’’ to help determine how to allocate employees and resources.
“Contrary to Ms. Therrien’s claims, the objective-setting process for EI integrity has been in place for decades and has not changed,’’ Gilbert added.


 source: http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2013/10/24/ei_fraud_investigator_axed_for_leaking_quota_details.html

Monday, June 9, 2014

FAIR takes aim at FSCO

The Fair Association of Victims for Accident Insurance Reform  has taken aim at the Financial Services Commission of Ontario’s 2014 Draft Statement of Priorities, describing it as a "Christmas wish list" for insurance companies.

“Where is the protection talked about in this statement? Why are tens of thousands of Ontario’s accident victims lining up for hearings when they’ve been wrongfully denied the benefits they paid for in a time of need?” says Rhona DesRoches, chair of FAIR, in an open letter to Philip Howell, CEO and superintendent of financial services for FSCO. “Over and over the changes to our coverage read like a Christmas wish list for the Insurance Bureau of Canada.”

FAIR had criticized the Ontario government just prior to the election announcement, after it was bumped from its spot on the list of groups to speak on Bill 171. (See FAIR cries foul over Bill 171 hearings.) At the time, DesRoches criticized a list of “only eight presenters, none of whom speak to the issues of Ontario’s accident victims.”

This time around, Desroches and FAIR have chosen FSCO as their target for what they perceive as a built-in inequality in the insurance claim system.

“The reality of making an auto accident claim in Ontario versus the ‘open and transparent system that protects the public’ that is described on the FSCO website and in this draft statement are two totally different realities,” says DesRoches. Accident victims do not feel protected or that they are being assisted in a ‘fair and open system’ that is looking after their best interests. Half of those who make a claim are unable to access medical rehab and other needed benefits and yet ‘FSCO aims to improve the ways in which it regulates and delivers services to foster consumer protection in the financial services sectors.’”

 DesRoches asks Howell why FSCO hasn’t taken any action to protect vulnerable accident victims from predatory assessors.

“FAIR has asked this question many times – we’ve asked the Anti-Fraud Task Force, Justice Cunningham at the DRS review, and our legislators,” says DesRoches. “FSCO is aware that some of Ontario’s regulatory colleges are failing in their duty and yet you are quite willing to rely on this broken system of flawed medical assessments rather than fix this fundamental problem.”

When contacted by Insurance Business about the open letter, FSCO had this to say:

“As many of the concerns outlined in the FAIR letter relate to changes to legislation, we would like to clarify that any legislative or regulatory changes are led by the Ontario Government, not by FSCO. 

“FSCO is accountable to the Minister of Finance, and Section 11 of the FSCO Act requires that FSCO publish in the Ontario Gazette and deliver to the Minister of Finance by June 30 of each year a statement setting out FSCO’s proposed priorities and the reasons for adopting these priorities. As part of this process, FSCO is seeking public input before publishing its proposed priorities for the fiscal year.”

FSCO also stated that its role is to protect the public interest and promote public confidence in the sectors it regulates.

“Under the FSCO Act and the Insurance Act, our responsibilities specific to auto insurance include:
- overseeing how auto insurance is priced;
- approving the rules that companies can and cannot use to refuse to sell insurance to a consumer;
-approving risk classification systems, which insurers use to determine individual consumers’ rates;
- licensing those who sell insurance in Ontario; and
- reviewing complaints against insurance companies and those who work in the insurance industry.”



  • Devils Trumpet on 03/06/2014 4:34:28 PM
    If FSCO is the paper tiger Mr.Howell claims it to be,then it's obvious that the agency be restructured,it's clearly is not in the best interest of the public.Even the industry-financed FSCO ombudsman rarely,if ever sides with the claimant.With no public representation and input at FSCO,is it any wonder?
    This government has gone to great lengths to silence FAIR,being bumped at the last opportunity to speak on Bill 171 was another egregious attempt to silence accident victims.
    Rather than make the system more "fair and open"the new anti-fraud measures re-victimizes accident victims while increasing profits for the industry.The attack upon survivors will undoubtedly continue in earnest,accident victims will continue to push for insurance reform that benefits them as well as the industry.FSCO may be a paper tiger,the survivors are not.
  • TammyK on 03/06/2014 6:16:55 PM
    So basically, FSCO, the government, and the insurers are playing a blame game. There isn't any accountability for not adhering to the contract aka, auto policy, we are forced to buy! Insurers get their money from the policy holders (possible victim). The politicians get their pockets lined from the IBC through"contributions" via membership money from the insurers. FSCO is "accountable" to the government by ensuring the insurers are kept in line.

    - overseeing how auto insurance is priced;
    - approving the rules that companies can and cannot use to refuse to sell insurance to a consumer;
    -approving risk classification systems, which insurers use to determine individual consumers’ rates;
    - licensing those who sell insurance in Ontario; and
    - reviewing complaints against insurance companies and those who work in the insurance industry.

    REVIEWING COMPLAINTS? WHAT ABOUT INVESTIGATIONS? TRANSPARENCY?

    NO ONE in these parties is held liable or accountable for the abuse and traumatizing that the accident victims are submitted to!
    These are the same "parties" that are paid to ensure victims of MVA will have their recovery needs available!
  • Concerned Citizen on 03/06/2014 8:36:18 PM
    "reviewing complaints against insurance companies and those who work in the insurance industry."

    FSCO is certainly not doing it's job in the above "responsibility". Ontario is turning a blind eye to the way Accident Victims are being treated, especially seriously injured victims. The Christmas Wish List mentioned in the letter is 100% correct. Shame on our Politicians and FSCO.
  • Concerned Citizen on 03/06/2014 8:49:08 PM
    FAIR is "bang on" in the above letter.

    I agree with FSCO in that it is the Gov't making these changes that are hurting Accident Victims, but they are certainly not doing their job in regard to the last listed responsibility.
    "...reviewing complaints against insurance companies and those who work in the insurance industry."
  • Griswald G on 04/06/2014 9:11:16 AM
    The insurance industry with their slash and burn mentality in the name of savings has created a system that just isn't working. This should be an election issue. If we injure someone we want the system to work for that person and not be punishing them for making a claim. The medical examinations Fair talks about should be accurate diagnosis of injuries and not used as a dishonest reason for not paying up. There shouldn't be good and bad insurance companies. They should all have to stand behind their contracts and if they don't they should be kicked out of the province and not allowed to sell useless policies to consumers. If the Financial Services commission doesn't know or can't figure out that it is their job to make sure that we are covered then they shouldn't hold themselves out as regulators. Bad job all way around for accident victims.
  • Rick on 04/06/2014 12:24:56 PM
    No government has taken on the issue since no-fault came in - everything a patch job that benefits insurers. What we have now doesn't resemble what we started off with and just keeps getting worse each time. Most expensive premiums and worst coverage in Canada.
  • Friendly Reader on 03/06/2014 9:03:47 AM
    Way to go FAIR! Someone has to stand up against the insurance companies that are abusing their powers. To be fair, not all the companies are the same, but the ones that are trying to get out of paying legitimate claims need to be held accountable.
  • paul c. armstrong on 03/06/2014 10:55:41 AM
    Nothing appears 'Fair.' Legitimate claimants whose needs are unaddressed allegedly by insurers and fraudulent claims that get addressed. If fraud is the key to treat all claims, then the 'Government' not 'FISCO' has to do it. There is a 'way' but there needs to be a 'will.' Maybe Mr. Hudak has this issue as a priority in his quiver of arrows.
source: http://www.insurancebusiness.ca/news/fair-takes-aim-at-fsco-178130.aspx?p=1

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.

The bill looked to name the Licence Appeal Tribunal as the new location for the dispute resolution section of the Financial Services Commission of Ontario (FSCO) – a move that would raise serious concerns for drivers, said Cho.

“A major concern with respect to this shift would be whether it would lead to further backlog and delay in having disputes resolved effectively. This has been a challenge facing the Ontario accident benefits regime for many years,” said Cho.

“A second concern, and equally significant, is that FSCO arbitrators, who have significant knowledge and experience in making decisions on accident benefits disputes, would be replaced with per diem arbitrators who do not possess the same level of expertise and knowledge of the Ontario accident benefits regime.

“At this stage, there are not enough facts about how the Licence Appeal Tribunal would operate, but my concern is how this change would impact Ontario drivers and specifically those currently involved in disputes with their insurers as they may be facing additional delays and potentially a new set of rules and procedures with the Licence Appeal Tribunal.”

The bill also proposed repealing sections of the Insurance Act that would stipulate that no person may bring a proceeding in any court with respect to a dispute over statutory accident benefits, “other than an appeal from a decision of the Licence Appeal Tribunal or an application for judicial review.” The impact of such a change “cannot be overstated,” said Cho.

“I anticipate that there would be great resistance and a strong response to this type of change from the legal community as well as from Ontario drivers as it restricts access to justice,” he said.

“By removing the right for someone to bring an accident benefits dispute into the court system, it denies the individual their inherent right to have their dispute heard before a local judge to decide an issue. This type of change confines an individual to a specific set of rules and procedures established by the Licence Appeal Tribunal and also eliminates the ability to proceed with punitive and exemplary damages where they may be appropriate.”
The amendment would “remove accountability for an insurer’s actions,” said Cho.

“Bill 171 would also impact access to justice due to the change in the calculation of pre-judgment interest,” he said. “The proposed change in the legislation would set an interest rate based on the Courts of Justice Act, resulting in a drop from 5 per cent to 1.3 per cent per annum. The current SABS rate is 1 per cent compounded monthly. As such, insurance companies will find little incentive to settle with an injured party at an earlier stage.”

Despite the uncertain future of Bill 171, Cho said the issues are worth discussing because they’re bound to resurface in the legislature.

“There needs to be a better dialogue between representatives of Ontario drivers and the insurance companies,” said Cho. “As it currently stands, there is an imbalance of power in the automobile insurance industry. The near introduction of Bill 171 and its sweeping changes without much public debate is evidence of this.”

source:  http://advocatedaily.com/2014/06/balance-needed-between-interests-of-drivers-insurers/

Has Service Canada work to rule affected my claim for CPP Disability Benefits?

Minister accuses EI union of working to rule

The number of jobless Canadians who managed to connect with an agent when they called Service Canada looking for their employment insurance cheques reached its lowest level in six years this fall.

Service Canada employees say the decline in staff size is the cause of the jammed phone lines – and the problems that many unemployed people are having in getting their benefits applications processed.

The number of jobless Canadians who managed to connect with an agent when they called Service Canada looking for their employment insurance cheques reached its lowest level in six years this fall.
Service Canada employees say the decline in staff size is the cause of the jammed phone lines – and the problems that many unemployed people are having in getting their benefits applications processed.

More related to this story

But Human Resources Minister Diane Finley suggests the workers in her agency are deliberately cutting back on service as part of a backlash against the changes being made by the Conservative government to automate the EI process.

In a letter to the Charlottetown Guardian dated Nov. 21, Ms. Finley says it is most interesting that “in the month that we announced we will be overhauling and improving EI processing to better serve Canadians – before any changes were introduced – productivity and performance went from being on par with last year's performance at this time, to the worst in five years.”

More than 1,000 processing agents have been let go since the spring. Ms. Finley says they were temporary employees hired specifically to deal with a balloon in EI claims during the recent recession.

But the Canada Employment and Immigration Union says the number of processing agents is now well below prerecession levels. And the union is furious that Ms. Finley would suggest there is a work-to-rule campaign going on.
“If service levels are the worst that they’ve been in five years, I can assure you, it is entirely because Service Canada was far too quick to cut positions on the premise that automation would compensate,” said Steve McCuaig, the union’s national executive vice-president.

Alyson Queen, a spokeswoman for Ms. Finley, said the Human Resources Department is engaged in a process of modernizing its systems that will ultimately allow for better, faster and more cost-effective service to Canadians.
But Mr. McCuaig said “there isn’t an automated system in the world that can process applications that are as complex as EI legislation is and as unique to the applicants and their circumstances.”

Meanwhile, statistics supplied by Ms. Finley to Rodger Cuzner, the Liberal human resources critics, show the decline in service at the department’s call centres has been going on for at least six years.

In 2005-06, 58 per cent of the calls about EI from across Canada actually made it through to an agent. By September of this year, that had dropped to 32 per cent.

And, in some regions, the drop was much more pronounced. In Edmonton, for instance, the successful calls fell from 91 per cent to 31 per cent over the six-year span. In Regina, they fell from 84 per cent to 26 per cent.
The department denies that it has failed to renew the contracts of temporary employees in the Service Canada call centres.

“Through normal attrition, 84 people have left the call centres since July of this year and we have not replaced those positions,” Ms. Queen said. “However, for the record, there have been no non-renewals of term contracts or terminations within the EI or [Canada Pension Plan]call centres as a result of financial pressures.”

The union representatives, however, says that is patently untrue and that hundreds of temporary call centre employees across the country have been told they are no longer needed. They point to grievances that have been filed by their members who were let go in September, and memos from managers telling employees that staff is being reduced as a result of monetary cutbacks.

source: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/minister-accuses-ei-union-of-working-to-rule/article542818/?from=549462 

NDP blasts dismal response rate as Tories cut EI call centres

With the Conservative government planning to downsize call centres that handle employment insurance claims, the New Democrats have obtained data to show that one in every four calls is being abandoned because callers can’t reach a representative.
Internal government documents released by the NDP at an Ottawa news conference Wednesday show that in larger cities like Winnipeg and Vancouver, nearly a third of the people who called Service Canada about EI last month eventually hung up because they could not speak to someone in a timely manner.

More related to this story

And in the final week of September, more than half of the people who called about the Canada Pension Plan and Old Age Security reached nothing but a busy signal.

“Folks on the other end of the line who depend on the service couldn’t even get through nearly 25 per cent of the time,” human resources critic Jean Crowder said. “So one out of every four people who call can’t talk to anyone about the problem they are having.”

Service Canada employees have received e-mails telling them that call centres in Vancouver, Montague, PEI, and the Nova Scotia communities of Glace Bay and Sydney will be reduced in size over the next three years.

Human Resources Minister Diane Finley has explained that the government hired extra employees on a temporary basis during the recession to handle the high volume of EI claims.

“Fortunately, thanks to our economic action plan, more Canadians are at work now than ever before, so there is not the same need to hire people to process the claims,” the minister said last month when asked about the downsizing at the call centres.

“The individuals knew that they were temporary jobs, but service standards have improved compared to the 10 weeks it took when the Liberals were in power,” Ms. Finley said.

She has also said Service Canada is moving away from a paper system to automated processes that will give workers more time to deal directly with the people they serve.

But Ms. Crowder said the automated system has been in place for five years and most people already try to file their claims on line.

“Less than 50 per cent of claims can be handled without an employee involved,” she said. “Even a tiny anomaly in a claim will be rejected by the automated system.”

Unemployed workers who need help but cannot get help by telephone will have to wait longer for the money they need to pay their bills, Ms. Crowder said.
The government, she added, “should reverse the decision to cut the staff at EI processing centres so Canadians are not left waiting for the benefits they deserve and need in these tough economic times.”

source:  http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/ndp-blasts-dismal-response-rate-as-tories-cut-ei-call-centres/article619007/

EI queue has ballooned since Service Canada staff cuts

Hundreds of thousands of unemployed Canadians are waiting for the federal government to process their claims for employment insurance – a queue that newly released documents show has doubled since 2007 as Services Canada reduces its staff.

In October of 2007, there were 181,931 people waiting for their claims to be processed, according to documents obtained by The Globe and Mail using federal Access to Information legislation. By October of this year, that number had climbed to 360,481 – and according to past seasonal trends, is likely to be higher now.

More related to this story

Growth in the waiting list for benefits parallels a decline in temporary and permanent staff in the processing centres, with numbers 13 per cent lower than in October, 2007. Hundreds of additional processing agents were hired during the economic downturn of 2008 and 2009 but those people, and others, have since been let go or left without being replaced.

The result has been a system in turmoil, as documented in a series of Globe stories over the past two months. Unemployed people are unable to get through by telephone to find out what is delaying their benefits. The newly released documents reveal wild fluctuations in temporary staff at Service Canada’s call centres where the phone lines as so jammed that just one in three calls is answered.

Many of the unemployed are turning up at Service Canada centres instead and are extremely frustrated. Service Canada workers in a number of cities are reporting receiving threats of violence.

One woman who waited for months for an answer is Lorena Delim, a health-care aide who went on maternity leave a year ago when her son was born. The baby died in August – a tragedy Ms. Delim cannot bring herself to discuss even four months later.

She immediately told Service Canada that the boy had passed away. Because of her fragile emotional state, she was advised to convert some of the remaining months of her maternity leave to disability leave.
Weeks later, she had received no cheque for the period after the baby’s death but she did get a letter from Service Canada telling her she had to pay back more than $500 in benefits.

Ms. Delim tried repeatedly to telephone a government agent to set things straight but could not get past the message machines. More than once she went into the local Service Canada centre in an attempt to resolve the issue. “They e-mailed for the processing centre to call me back but I never heard from them again,” she said in a telephone interview.

Ms. Delim eventually turned to Winnipeg’s Unemployed Help Centre to see if the staff there could get through to Service Canada on her behalf. In the week before Christmas – three weeks after she had returned to her job – she was finally told she would be getting benefits for September and October.
Although the number of people who, like Ms. Delim, are waiting has spiked in 2011, the 248,659 EI claims filed in October were about the same as in Octobers past, the documents obtained by The Globe show.

The documents did not give figures for November and December of 2011. But the records show that the number of Canadians waiting for their first benefits cheque annually jumps by as much as 100,000 during those months as a result of seasonal fluctuations. So the real number of unemployed Canadians currently waiting for their first EI payment could be approaching 500,000.

In response to questions from The Globe, the Human Resources Department said it works to “maintain a flexible and sustainable workforce capacity comprising both permanent and temporary employees, working on a full- or part-time basis.”

Human Resources Minister Diane Finley says fewer people are needed because her department is moving to a more automated system.
But Service Canada workers point out that the system became automated four years ago. And they say the depletion of their ranks means any claim that requires human intervention is taking additional weeks and even months to process.

“I liken this to a ticking time bomb,” says Neil Cohen, the executive director of the Community Unemployed Help Centre in Winnipeg.
“We have clients who are dealing with depression issues who have talked about suicide and those threats have to be taken seriously [as do]threats of violence against Service Canada workers,” Mr. Cohen said. “The federal government has just ignored the problem.”

 source: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ei-queue-has-ballooned-since-service-canada-staff-cuts/article4247846/

Service Canada employees told to keep mum on complaints office

There is an office within Service Canada where jobless people who have waited undue lengths of time for their first employment-insurance cheque can complain about the delay – but Service Canada employees are not permitted to tell them about it.
It’s called the Office of Client Satisfaction, and it promises to work to “resolve any issues brought to its attention.” But call centre agents who field questions about EI claims say they have been warned by their bosses not to mention its existence to the frustrated people on the other end of the line.

More related to this story

“The only way they are allowed to give information about it is if the client specifically says, ‘Do you have information about the Office of Client Satisfaction,’ ” said Steve McCuaig, the national vice-president of the Canada Employment and Immigration Union. “So how are they supposed to ask for something they don’t even know exists?”

It’s a bind that the agents find themselves in more often as the work force assigned to process claims shrinks to meet federal budget restraints, and the number of EI claims that take more than the maximum 28 days to be decided increases correspondingly.

Even though the jobless rate went up last month, Service Canada's work force is expected to decline even further as Human Resources and Skills Development Canada trims costs to meet deficit reduction targets. So the lines at Service Canada which are already jammed with anxious EI claimants are likely to get even busier.

Many of the angry claimants are turning to their local MP for help.
“Why should they have to call an MP when they've got me on the phone?” said one Service Canada call-centre agent. “I tell them we are late, but can’t take their complaint? Crazy. Who wouldn't go nuts at that? We deliver bad news but aren't accountable to it.”

Another agent, however, said there would be little point in directing someone whose benefits have been delayed to the Office of Client Satisfaction because that office can only turn to the same overworked processing agents who are fielding complaints forwarded by the call-centre staff.

Until July, those processing agents were required to return calls to people who had complaints about their claims within two days. That has been increased to five days because the agents could not keep up with the volume of calls. And Service Canada staff say even the five-day deadline is not being met.
The Human Resources Department was asked for basic information about the Office of Client Satisfaction on Tuesday, and to explain why call-centre agents could not divulge its existence to clients – but no responses were provided.
Jamus Dorey of Nova Scotia applied for employment insurance on July 24. His claim was not processed until Sept. 24, and he received his first EI cheque on Sept. 28.
“It went on and on and on,” he said. “I would call almost every second day for the full eight weeks and not one person from Service Canada actually called me back.”

Mr. Dorey found a job in October. But as the single father of a young son, he says he is very glad he had his own savings to get through two months with no income.

Throughout the days and weeks that he was trying to get answers out of Service Canada, no one told him about the Office of Client Satisfaction. It was the staff working for Rodger Cuzner, his Liberal MP who also happens to be the party’s critic for Human Resources, who told him there was an office within Service Canada where he could make a complaint.

Mr. Dorey said he called the Office of Client Satisfaction and was told someone would get back to him in a week. The claim was approved shortly thereafter, but he attributes the resolution to Mr. Cuzner’s intervention.

source: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/service-canada-employees-told-to-keep-mum-on-complaints-office/article542838/

Calls to EI complaints office skyrocket

The secretive Office for Client Satisfaction where jobless Canadians can launch complaints about the handling of their employment insurance claims is not so secret any more.

New documents released this week by the Conservative government show that the office received 9,488 “comments” between April 1 and Dec. 7 of last year.

More related to this story

That is a considerable increase from the period between 2007 and 2010 when the office averaged a little more than 3,000 comments a year. The number jumped to about 6,000 in fiscal year 2010-11 – an increase that Service Canada attributes to a higher volume of EI claims.
But, in the current fiscal year that ends on March 31, the office is on track to hear from more than 12,000 Canadians.

The volume of comments ballooned in November when The Globe and Mail published a story quoting Service Canada call-centre agents who said they have been warned by their bosses not to mention the office’s existence to jobless clients who are frustrated with the time it is taking to process their EI claims.
“Since November 2011, the extremely high volumes of client feedback have led to delays in processing some of the more complex files,” say the documents, which were provided in response to questions from Jean Crowder, the NDP human resources critic.

Ms. Crowder said she believes the increase in calls to the Office for Client Satisfaction (OCS) can be attributed to the fact that people are becoming aware of it. “And cuts to services are forcing people into looking for alternatives,” she said.

In response to questions about the recent spike, Service Canada said additional resources have been added to the OCS, and the department’s website “has been updated to encourage clients to direct their request to the appropriate program.”

Service Canada staff say they have been unable to keep up with the workload after hundreds of workers were cut last year.

Human Resources Minister Diane Finley recently authorized the temporary rehiring of more than 100 employees who had been laid off from the EI processing centres, as well as the reassignment of workers from other divisions within Service Canada, to deal with a rising mountain of claims.

In October, more than 360,000 people were waiting for their EI benefits to be processed, a backlog that has since grown, and some unemployed people are waiting months for their first cheque.

Frustrated claimants have jammed the phone lines at Service Canada call centres. But many of the agents who deal with those callers say they have been told not to tell them about the Office for Client Satisfaction.

Don Rogers, the national president of the Canadian Employment and Immigration Union, which represents call-centre agents and claims processors, said Service Canada workers in some parts of the country are allowed to give out the number for the OCS while workers in other regions are strongly dissuaded from doing so.

“But we have been encouraging folks, if they are not happy with the wait times, that the best thing to do is to register your unhappiness with the Office for Client Satisfaction,” he said. “That’s why it’s there.”

The documents provided to Ms. Crowder also show high levels of absenteeism among Service Canada staff, especially at the processing centres. While the average Canadian worker takes between seven and eight sick days a year, EI processing agents take an average of nearly 12.

Mr. Rogers said his members are experiencing high levels of stress and anxiety. “You can imagine when it takes a member of the public days to get through [on the telephone]with a query that they may be unhappy when they finally get through and speak with someone,” he said.

Ms. Crowder said she is hearing anecdotally from Service Canada employees about the difficult environment in which they work. “They are hearing people threatening suicide,” she said, “they are hearing threats of violence and all that kind of thing.”

source: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/calls-to-ei-complaints-office-skyrocket/article549462/ 

Tuesday, June 3, 2014

Social Security Tribunal - Unsecured Submission rules.

The Social Security Tribunal system revelled itself with a phone message from “Paul”.
Paul called to confirm receipt of my faxes -apparently they were receiving hundreds of blank pages and were concerned.

To help Paul I gave them my email address so I could send them my Open PGP secure email submissions instead of fax. Unfortunately that process did not work out well.
An email from David Burnside from the Social Security Tribunal said their firewall was preventing my submissions and they are not setup to accept submissions by secure email. They will also not accept documents from password protected cloud document share resources -for example Google Docs.
They will however accept unsecured email and unsecured attachments.

The process of sending documents to the Social Security Tribunal has many flaws ( file size limits, unsecured) and makes it unreasonably hard for a crash victim trying to submit documents relating to a Disability Benefits appeal. Knowone should be made to send personal medical information unsecured. This experience has educated me in the lack of security for sending personal medical information to the Social Security Tribunal. They should accept signed open PGP secure email, or make other arrangements to send and receive personal information securely. To be clear, the problem with my email submissions is on their end, not mine, ALL rules should be given to an appeal applicant upfront.

It would have made my appeal so much easier for everyone if the Social Security Tribunal acquired my insurance-legal-medical information directly from the sources ( Doctors, Lawyers, HCAI, hospitals, etc.) How do they expect a crash victim out of work since 2007 to acquire 600 confidential insurance-legal-medical pages from different sources free of charge?

It is nice to finally have an actual persons name from the Tribunal. My confidential insurance-legal-medical submissions were flowing uninterrupted by fax. Now that the Tribunal has these documents they need to confirm them. I have asked repeatedly for confirmation but to date have not received any.

I sent the contents of Canadian Insurance News to the Social Security Tribunal as it relates to comments made by Service Canada in their denial letter about me not doing “some kind of work”. The contents of the site shows that I do in fact “some kind of work” when I can.
The email contents of the site prompted a URGENT email response and telephone message from David Burnside from the Social Security Tribunal. Apparently he has restrictions as to what he can write in an email it would be considered protected B material. Seems so wrong that he can accept unsecured email from me but he has restrictions and cant provide me with confirmation of what medical documents I have sent him.

The David Burnside email was marked URGENT so I called him at the number in his email footer and was told by the Social Security Tribunal that I could ask for a direct number from David. I emailed David but he said he does not have a direct line to supply. Another example of confusion on their end.

Confirmation was an issue with my medical submissions with Service Canada and is now again with the Social Security Tribunal. When ever, or if ever, they finally confirm what they have received from me they still need to read my submissions. Given the history of my claim for CPP Disability Benefits being so blatantly ignored by Service Canada and passed on to the Tribunal , I seriously doubt they will even take the time.

At this writing David Burnside from the Social Security Tribunal asked for a phone number. I explained to him that unfortunately I do not have a phone, I do not have a cell phone, I do not have any income, I do not have a job, I have not worked since 2007. I am being financially supported by my common law spouse. She supports the 3 of us with her part time job.

If the Social Security Tribunal wants me to get a phone maybe they should grant my Appeal so that I can get one with my disability benefits that I am clearly entitled to.

The alternative is to simply give me a number to talk to someone. Come on Social Security Tribunal even Walmart has customer service!

Crash victim 2007, CPP Disability applicant since 2008.

Administrator,
Surviving a Collision,

Rationing Civil Justice

We all know we have an access to justice problem in this country. Actually doing something about it is more of a challenge.

In 1999, Justice Rosalie Abella – then a Justice of the Court of Appeal for Ontario – gave a speech which should be required reading for every lawyer, every judge, every ministry of justice official, every law professor and every law student; in short, for everyone involved in whatever way in the legal profession. Clients don’t need to read the speech because they experience its bitter truths.

Sadly, Justice Abella’s speech is timeless. The only thing that has changed is Justice Abella’s title. Fifteen years ago, she sounded an alarm:

“We have moved from being a society governed by the rule of law to being a society governed by the law of rules. We have become so completely seduced by the notion, borrowed from criminal law, that process ensures justice, that we have come to believe that process is justice. Yet to members of the public who find themselves mired for years in the civil justice system’s process, process may be the obstacle to justice. It may be time – again – to rethink how civil disputes are resolved.”

Read the rest of the speech. I will simply cherry pick one of the many important points from it: “Can we honestly say that the fair resolution of such a dispute requires several years and resort to hundreds of rules? . . . People want their day in court, not their years.”

Which leads me to my brief thesis: we need to start rationing civil justice.

The demand for legal services far outstrips the available affordable supply. Traditional thinking has been to attempt to increase the supply to deal with the demand: more lawyers, more money for legal aid, more clinics, more judges, more courts, etc. I know of no jurisdiction in Canada where there is a political appetite for more public funding for any of this.

Thus, a logical response is to ration the supply of civil justice. Here, we would best to consider parallels with the medical system since much of the civil justice is publicly-funded.

In fact, all of the civil justice system is publicly-funded except for the lawyers. Taxpayers pay for judges’ salaries, court staff, security and everything related to courthouses. Yet, we allow litigants and their lawyers to dictate the length and therefore the costs in terms of both dollars and consequent delays.

We allow lawyers to dictate the length of motions and trials based on their perceived needs. This is backwards. When we go see a doctor, we don’t get to decide we want to spend an hour or two with the doctor. We get 15 minutes and that’s it.

The justice system must similarly dictate time restrictions to lawyers and litigants based on available resources. This means setting firm time limits in different areas of the law. Family law trial or other civil case? You have two days. Put forward your best evidence. If the Supreme Court of Canada could decide the Senate Reform Reference with two and half days of argument, we should have to explain why more time should be given to standard cases.

Medical malpractice case? Each side gets two experts, not five. Or better yet, one court appointed expert. Motions? Change the default to make them in writing.

This is all harsh medicine for the legal profession and the justice system but do we really have any choice at this point?

As Justice Abella wrote in 1999:

When we say, “It can’t be done,” and the public asks, “Why not,” they want a better reason than “Because we’ve always done it this way.”

She was right in 1999 and she is still right in 2014. The question is whether she will still be right in 2029.

 source: by http://www.slaw.ca/2014/06/02/rationing-civil-justice/

Monday, June 2, 2014

FAIR submission to FSCO Statement of Priorities

FAIR Association of Victims for Accident Insurance Reform
579A Lakeshore Rd. E. P.O. Box 39522
Mississauga, ON L5G 4S6



Response to: FSCO’s 2014 Statement of Priorities

May 30, 2014


Dear Mr. Howell,

FAIR Association of Victims for Accident Insurance Reform is a not-for-profit consumer organization whose members are accident victims, their supporters and consumers who have an interest in Ontario‘s insurance system. Our perspective is one of the end users of Ontario‘s insurance product and we represent those most affected by changes to coverage, Ontario‘s accident victims.

Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the FSCO 2014 Draft Statement of Priorities.

We would like to think that the well-being and recovery of Ontario’s accident victims is priority one for Ontario’s government. The constant erosion of coverage, the abuse of Ontario’s vulnerable accident victims by insurers and their experts tells us that this isn’t so.

The reality of making an auto accident claim in Ontario versus the “open and transparent system that protects the public” that is described on the FSCO website and in this draft statement are two totally different realities.

The draft report speaks of enhancing consumer confidence in FSCO when it is clear that the system isn’t working and the overpriced coverage we purchase isn’t there when we need it. Congratulating yourselves on a great job done is disingenuous when it isn’t an accurate reflection of what is really going on in respect to Ontario’s auto insurance coverage. We have a system that is at best described as dysfunctional and at worst as causing harm to innocent accident victims. This isn’t a system that is effective, timely or fair.

It is a false promise that FSCO has an open and transparent system - the public should know that many of the recent changes to coverage were done without adequate consultation with the public or accident victims. In fact, accident victims were closed out of any hearings in respect to Bill 171 - as if the 9 million drivers in Ontario just didn’t matter.

This week we find out that accident victims’ treatment providers will have to pay additional fees for using HCAI when they assist MVA victims to access care and treatment. How is this fighting fraud in the system? How does that fix anything? It surely won’t be far down the road that the IBC will be saying (again) that claims costs have risen and that benefits need to be cut again.

Over and over the changes to our coverage read like a Christmas wish list for the Insurance Bureau of Canada. Many of our concerns are in the FAIR submission to the 3 year review http://www.fairassociation.ca/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/FAIR-Submission-to-the-3-Year-Review-March-31-2014-1.pdf and in http://www.fairassociation.ca/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/FAIR-Submission-on-Bill-171-April-30-2014.pdf

Why is FSCO still not taking any action to protect vulnerable accident victims from predatory assessors? FAIR has asked this question many times – we’ve asked the Anti-Fraud Task Force, Justice Cunningham at the DRS review, and our legislators. FSCO is aware that some of Ontario’s regulatory colleges are failing in their duty and yet you are quite willing to rely on this broken system of flawed medical assessments rather than fix this fundamental problem.

Accident victims do not feel protected or that they are being assisted in a “fair and open system” that is looking after their best interests. Half of those who make a claim are unable to access medical rehab and other needed benefits and yet the “FSCO aims to improve the ways in which it regulates and delivers services to foster consumer protection in the financial services sectors.”

Where is the protection talked about in this statement? Why are tens of thousands of Ontario’s accident victims lining up for hearings when they’ve been wrongfully denied the benefits they paid for in a time of need?

Why are accident victims still being subjected to poor quality or bogus medical examinations that are virtually without oversight? Why are MVA victims still being abused by some individuals in the medical community whose incomes are dependent on the insurer that hires them to do these poor quality reports? We ask the question but we already know the answer – benefits are paid out (or not) based on these medical reports and all an insurer needs is one medical professional to say an MVA victim doesn’t need the treatment prescribed by another professional and the claim is denied.

We’d ask the question why there are so many accident victims lined up for hearings at FSCO but we already know the answer to that too. See paragraph above.

We’d ask why cases are still taking so long and why legal costs are so high but we already know that the line-up and the costs are the direct result of improper or incompetent denials - see the paragraph above.

Victims only have one real question that needs answering – when are you going to fix this dysfunctional system?

We know there is some fraud everywhere in any system and legitimate accident victims support fraud awareness. But they don’t support insurer incompetence or fraudulent deflating of their injuries so insurers can save more money.

Why are insurers not subjected to the same scrutiny as are claimants and rehabilitation and support workers? Why are Ontario’s insurer physician assessors not held accountable for their actions when they produce biased or unqualified reports – the whole system is based on whether or not an accident victim is injured so why isn’t there any quality or regulatory action on assuring these reports have value? Isn’t that lack of oversight the how and why there are so many claims turned down in Ontario and why our courts are clogged up with cases?

Will the new prosecution office take legal action on the for-hire medico-legal experts who falsely deflate injuries and treat it as the insurer fraud it is? If “FSCO supports that fraudsters should be vigorously pursued and prosecuted where evidence warrants” it would clean up some of the insurer fraud– or will insurers be given a free pass again by investigators and prosecutors who turn a blind eye to the fraudulent practice of unqualified accusations of malingering by pro-insurer assessors?

The Statement of Priorities mentions nothing about ensuring adequate coverage for Ontario’s accident victims but plenty about mitigating risks. We’d like to point out that the risk of promoting such poor coverage for Ontario’s citizens and failing to ensure that Ontario’s insurers stand behind their contracts leads to a significant cost download to the taxpayers. An insurance product that only covers half of those individuals who are injured is hardly a bargain.

FSCO knows full well that the Minor Injury Treatment Protocol report is some years away and since 2010 too many claimants have fallen through the cracks and are left without care or resources. This study should have been done before such radical slashing of coverage for Ontario consumers. It is hardly a strategy to do such a study after making these changes that have benefited Ontario’s insurers while impoverishing Ontario’s accident victims. 

If FSCO aims to improve the ways in which it regulates and delivers services to foster consumer protection in the financial services sectors then why are you not holding insurers accountable when they wrongfully deny a legitimate claim? Why is it that through Bill 171 accident victims will have the interest on money owed to them on overdue payments reduced to such an extreme low level that it will encourage Ontario’s insurers to deny even more claims?

And why support less access to justice for accident victims? Is it so insurers can make even higher profits or is it to just keep the number of people who are denied access to treatment and benefits under wraps and out of sight – if they can’t access the courts, they don’t exist as unsatisfied customers.

Victims of Ontario’s deplorable auto accident insurance coverage have their own list of Highlights from 2014 and they can be found on the FAIR web-page at: http://www.fairassociation.ca/who-we-are-activities-and-actions/

We continue to write and to voice our concerns to the government but it appears that our concerns are falling on deaf ears. So in fairness to our members we think that you should read what accident victims really think about what a great job the Financial Services Commission of Ontario is doing with the auto insurance sector below.

FAIR Association of Victims for Accident Insurance Reform

How can a blameless victim of insurance crime obtain substantive legal advocacy, when the criminals are employed by insurance companies whose policies and practices are employed in predatory ways to deny claim services, intimidate, threaten and injure vulnerable claimants in a flawed system endorsed by disinterested law enforcement and bureaucratic enablers?”

“Forcing everyone to purchase car insurance without adequate coverage and more roadblocks than a obstacle course, is a disservice to all motorists. Can you imagine becoming permanently disabled and having to settle for significantly less than the cap applied to your condition? Now you are being expected to live out the rest of your life on a shoestring budget and significant physical obstacles. The younger the accident victim is only makes the situation worse.”
“ My Adjusters denied, delayed my legitimate accident benefits off and on for 5 years with the use of bogus reports. My case file was manipulated to provide false representation of a matter of fact by deleting parts of the file and duplicating others.”
I have been watching the benefits of legitimate survivors benefits being slashed over and over to help the insurers profit margins. Mr. Palumbo, how do you and the IBC sleep at night? God forbid, you or yours are very seriously injured in a MVA and ASSUME the benefits are available. For the amount of money being spent by the insurers to paint a survivor as a fraudster in a claim, with the IBC lining the pockets of the people willing to accept the your word without actual PROOF, also the insane amounts being spent on advertising to get the public to buy into the fraud, thousands of victims could be making maximum in their recoveries with the funds and resources that the IBC and INSURERS squander!”

For a few bucks, this government has made it clear that they have sold out not only accident victims and their families, but every rate payer who is under the illusion that, should they become injured in an auto accident, the insurer,who has received thousands upon thousands of dollars from the rate payer, will actually provide the benefits the insurer is obliged to provide. This is a government with no compunction as to remove the rights of Ontario residents and accident victims for the appeasement of an industry.”

“What about bill 59 and then the 2003 changes to coverage? What about the fact that we only have $3,500 coverage less the cost of a insurance medical assessment since the 2010 reforms? Where does it end? High premiums, virtually no coverage and an abusive system that requires a lawyer to even figure out. It's fake coverage with big business just siphoning off their profits - no money left for accident victims. What a scam. With the removal of the punitive value of pre-judgement it's an open season on victims. Just take our money and run when there's no reason to stand behind the policy thanks to our government's mishandling of this file.”
“Last year their profit was 4.4 BILLION, yet, they keep using the old unproven complaint that their are millions of malingerers (liars) out their costing insurance premium to go up! BULL!! Please do not forget that the 4.4 Billion is from the millions of citizens across Canada that are paying through the nose for car insurance and the worse treated in this country and in fact in the whole of North America is right here in Ontario!!!”
If they state the reason for their actions is to counter fraud, why are they spending more money to avoid making payments than would take to simply make the payments as originally promised?”

“The Financial Services Commission of Ontario and the Insurance Bureau of Canada are one and the same with our government bending to their every wish.”

“The Insurance Companies are using the smoke screen of "fraud" to further attack seriously injured victims, and all the Parties are playing right along. I realize there is fraud in the system, but it is getting blown "way" out of proportion. Accident victims are being labelled a fraud until proven innocent and with Bill 171, they will have fewer resources to fight this injustice. Somehow the biggest fraud never gets “seriously” put on the table and that would be the for-hire Independent Medical Examination (IME) Doctors. They treat accident victims with contempt or worse and deny or delay legitimate claims and benefits. Does this sound like a system that is trying to help people recover? In my opinion, this is a Human Rights abuse story.”
We’ve known for a very long time that the insurance companies and governments have been in bed together for decades while innocent victims suffer and are robbed blind due to so much corruption in this Ontario of ours.
It is so shocking that the Ontario Governments of the day are willing to abuse the rights of accident victims for the generous political contributions paid by Insurance Companies and the Insurance Bureau of Canada, IF their desires are met.

(IN FACT IT'S THE GENERAL PUBLIC'S MONEY BEING MANIPULATED TO SEE TO IT THAT INSURANCE COMPANIES AND YOUR GOVERNMENT ARE TOTALLY IN CONTROL AND FOR PROFIT/POWER WHILE TRUE VICTIMS ARE DOING WITHOUT AND ARE LEFT IN PAIN).
How many times has the Insurance Industry, over many years, state that billions are wasted on fraudulent claims and yet they refuse to produce their evidence?”

Is this not a human rights issue when the abuse of the injured is so wide-spread?”
Since 2003, accident victims have been treated with contempt by the insurance industry and it’s regulator. Injured persons and their families are receiving less and less in benefits and even more are being outright denied any benefits. Regulatory and legislative changes to auto insurance have greatly reduced financial and medical benefits while industry profits have exponentially risen within the same time frame. The argument for such changes has been the effort to combat fraud but does little to do so. How is punitively fining accident victims $500 for missing an assessment reduce fraud? With the exception of accident victims, the industry, government and other stakeholders have persevered in side stepping the issue of IME’s. Assessments that I have filling up an entire file cabinet all favour the insurance company, a typical outcome when doctors are paid by the insurer. These documents are sometimes not even authored by the examining doctor. These assessments are used to delay and deny benefits, sometimes by a medically untrained adjuster deciding on an accident victim’s medical needs such as medications and therapies. These medications and therapies are critical to an accident victim’s recovery in the first two years following an accident. IME’s are the most critical part of a claim to assess the severity of an accident victim’s injuries, incorrect or fraudulent reports guarantee an unfair and unjust outcome. Misrepresentation of the truth by any party involved denies justice to be seen as being done.”
“Why is our government even agreeing to a tax on justice in the first place? Another reason for insurance companies to fight their own customers when the law helps them beat up the defenseless victims. Our government is helping big business cheat their own customers - welcome to Ontario.”
“Scam on top of scam - it's as if the government has never heard of 'protect the public interest' when it comes to insurers - too busy counting donations.”
“The absurdity of a government who mandates that every driver has insurance and yet stays silent about the coverage we get, cooks secret deals, takes 'contributions', and abuses their power by changing coverage without consultation has no business saying they are acting in the best interests or protecting the rights of their citizens.”