Legal woes taking toll, report says

Everyday legal problems — from getting divorced, to fighting eviction notices, to disputing cell phone bills — cost Canadians about $7.7 billion a year.

Source/more:

http://www.lawyersweekly.ca/articles/2824

Constitutional Challenge Launched Against Flawed Ontario Liberal Government Automobile Insurance Legislation- Discriminatory and Unconstitutional

Joseph Campisi, lawyer and advocate, is launching a constitutional challenge in the Ontario Superior Courts.  Mr. Campisi is seeking a declaration from the courts that parts of the legislation that were recently passed by the Liberal Government are discriminatory and unconstitutional and should be inoperative.

"The right to access the Superior Courts is a fundamental right for Canadians.  I am concerned that the recently proclaimed legislation will deny this right to individuals who have been severely disabled." said applicant and noted Personal Injury Lawyer Joseph Campisi.  "Historically, the deck has been stacked against collision victims.  The recent amendments to the legislation have turned a bad situation into a worse one for these vulnerable individuals.  No longer will these individuals be allowed to have the assurance of impartiality and independence that is a cornerstone of our justice system when litigating a claim against their own insurance company.  I could not stand idly by and let this happen."...........

Sources/more:

http://www.newswire.ca/news-releases/constitutional-challenge-launched-against-flawed-ontario-liberal-government-automobile-insurance-legislation--discriminatory-and-unconstitutional-516506531.html

Experts should not bow to pressure of 'deep pockets'

A recent Ontario Superior Court of Justice decision that highlighted questions around bias of medical experts illustrates the duty of experts to serve the court rather than plaintiffs or insurance companies, says Toronto personal injury lawyer Simmy Yu.

Sourc/more:

http://www.advocatedaily.com/simmy-yu-experts-should-not-bow-to-pressure-of-deep-pockets.html

Court challenge to Ontario auto dispute resolution system ‘scheduled to proceed’

A constitutional challenge to Ontario’s auto accident benefits dispute resolution system is scheduled for a three-day hearing next February, but the retired judge who recommended that AB disputes go before a public sector administrative tribunal suggested Wednesday that it would have “seriously undermined” the proposals to reform the system if AB disputes could be brought to court.

Source/more:
http://www.canadianunderwriter.ca/insurance/court-challenge-ontario-auto-dispute-resolution-system-scheduled-proceed-hearing-feb-13-1004103046/

Ont. Super. Ct. finds that the terms of a consent form for a s. 44 SABS assessment must be agreed to by the parties and cannot be imposed by the insurer

In Intact Insurance Company v. Beaudry, Ontario Superior Court Justice Beaudoin held that absent a prescribed form, or a standard form that may be devloped by the various stakeholders, the insurer and insured must agree on the consent form for assessments by healthcare practitioners under s. 44 of the SABS before they can be conducted.

More:

http://www.hughesamys.com/blawg/blawg-post/blog/2016/10/19/ont.-super.-ct.-finds-that-the-terms-of-a-consent-form-for-a-s.-44-sabs-assessment-must-be-agreed-to-by-the-parties-and-cannot-be-imposed-by-the-insurer

Legal pains: The cost of justice includes physical health

An awful lot of Canadians are literally sick of their legal problems and that’s having an impact on health care costs, according to new findings of a study by the Canadian Forum on Civil Justice.

Click for larger version.

Almost 40 percent of people between the ages of 18 and 35 reported experiencing a physical health problem as a direct result of their legal problems. The number is even greater for people between 55 and 64 at 61.5 per cent.

The findings are a part of an ongoing five-year national study looking into the social and economic cost of Canada’s justice system.

“We’re concerned by the level of impact on society. No doubt that number is of concern,” says Trevor Farrow, associate law dean at Osgoode Hall Law School and the chair of the CFCJ.

But Farrow, the principal investigator of the cost of justice project, says the numbers did not surprise him.

“Quite frankly, while I’m certainly concerned about this, we expected the numbers would be significant,” he says.

The study also found unresolved legal problems are hitting the public purse outside of the justice sector. Annually, unsolved legal issues result in at least $40 million in additional health care costs, says Farrow.

That’s a conservative estimate based on one additional visit to the doctor each year as a result of legal pains.

“It’s based on annual estimates of what the health care system costs per person and what a modest increase per person amount to,” says Farrow.

He notes the details of these findings will be released in a more fulsome report in the future. As a whole, the ongoing study is also contemplating the mental health impact of unresolved legal problems, says Farrow.

But health care isn’t the only sector feeling the sting of unmet legal needs. A fact sheet published yesterday by the CFCJ says we’re also spending $458 million in additional employment insurance costs every year due to unresolved legal issues and dishing out an extra $248 million in social assistance costs.

What this means is “a well-supported, functioning justice system helps to reduce the knock-on costs of unresolved legal problems,” says Farrow. “The fewer of those problems we have, the more money we’ll be saving elsewhere. It’s not an isolated problem, it’s a collective problem that we need to notice.”

While the lack of access to justice is a well-known problem in Canada, the CFCJ study, funded by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada, is hoping to achieve a more sophisticated understanding of what the cost of that really is.

“What we didn’t really know is exactly what that [lack of access to justice] amount to in economic terms and also in related terms in health and wellbeing,” Farrow says. “I think the important thing is, from a user-centered perspective, we start to understand the connections between law and legal problems as part of broader social problems.”

http://www.cfcj-fcjc.org/sites/default/files//CostofJustice_overivewfactsheet%20.pdf

#1 RE: Legal pains: The cost of justice includes physical health — Tammy Kirkwood2015-03-15 09:14

Another study showing the costs to Justice is unaffordable to the average person, thus, costs to our social services is picking up the slack. We’ve seen how the cost of a victim of MVA is laid at the feet of the public purse because the insurance industry passes on their responsibility, The government has cut down the social services to save money in the government purse. At some point when do the people in need become more important, than lining everyone else’s purses? I’m Curious

Source: http://www.canadianlawyermag.com/legalfeeds/2587/legal-pains-the-cost-of-justice-includes-physical-health.html#addcomments

Auto collision lawsuit defendants' use of video surveillance evidence without disclosure in affidavit breached civil procedure rules, Ontario appeal court rules

 DAILY NEWS Feb 18, 2015 4:26 PM


The Court of Appeal for Ontario has overturned an earlier decision in a lawsuit arising from an auto collision, finding that the defendants breached the province's Rules of Civil Procedure in making a video of surveillance of the plaintiff an exhibit - and cross-examining the plaintiff on its contents - without having disclosed the existence of surveillance in an affidavit of documents.
In a ruling released Tuesday, the province's appeal court set aside a judgement of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice. The appeal court substituted a finding of liability against Stephen Corbett and St. Lawrence Cement Inc., who were sued by Andrea and Giuseppina Iannarella after a collision in February, 2008.


Andrea Iannarella was driving a pickup when he was rear-ended by the Corbett, who was driving a concrete mixer, on Ontario Highway 427, in stop-and-go traffic on a snowy evening.

"The jury found Mr. Corbett had not been driving negligently and the action was dismissed on liability grounds," wrote Mr. Justice Peter Lauwers, of the Court of Appeal for Ontario, of the original court ruling in 2012. "Had liability been established, the jury would have awarded general damages of $32,000 and $40,571 as damages for past income loss, but would not have awarded damages for future income loss."

The trial judge also dismissed Iannarella's claim for non-pecuniary damages "on the basis that the statutory 'threshold' for this type of recovery" under Section 267.5 of Ontario's Insurance Act was not met.

The issues on appeal included the trial judge permitting the defendents to use surveillance evidence.

In overturning the trial jury and ruling the defendants liable, the appeal court found Corbett "was plainly going too fast for the weather and road conditions and could have avoided the collision accident by exercising sufficient care."
Justice Lauwers also noted that during the trial, defence lawyers played a video from surveillance of Iannarella and cross examined Iannarella on its contents.
Court records indicate that excerpts of the video shown to the jury "show Mr. Iannarella variously waving his left arm, carrying a garbage bag, driving and turning the steering wheel with his left hand, reaching with his left arm to the top shelf in a grocery store to retrieve an item, and driving on a 400 series highway," Justice Lauwers wrote. The defendants "claimed at trial that these activities are inconsistent with Mr. Iannarella's self-reported limits on his functionality caused by the collision."

The defendents contended that the plaintiffs were "not entitled to an affidavit of documents or to surveillance particulars since they had not sought the affidavit and had waived examinations for discovery before the matter was set down for trial," noted Justice Lauwers.

But the appeal court found the defendants breached three sections of the Rules of Civil Procedure: "rule 30.03(1) by failing to serve an affidavit of documents; rule 30.07(b) by failing to disclose surveillance conducted after the matter was set down for trial in an affidavit of documents; and, inferentially, rule 31.09 obliging the respondents to correct answers given on an undertaking ultimately leading to the provision of surveillance particulars."

"The trial judge erred at the trial management conference," Justice Lauwers added. "He ought to have ordered the respondents to serve an affidavit of documents disclosing the surveillance or at least to disclose such particulars as are ordinarily provided through a discovery undertaking."

The other two judges hearing the appeal - Mr. Justice John Laskin and Mr. Justice William Hourigan - agreed.

They ordered a new trial on the issue of damages.

"Privileged documents must be included in a party's affidavit of documents," Justice Lauwers wrote. "Under rule 30.03(2)(b), video surveillance is typically identified in Schedule B to the affidavit of documents as a privileged document. The plaintiff then has the opportunity to seek full particulars of the surveillance from the defence at examination for discovery; the 'particulars' of surveillance that must be disclosed on request include the date, time and location of the surveillance, as well as the nature and duration of the activities depicted and the names and addresses of the videographers."



Source: http://www.canadianunderwriter.ca/news/auto-collision-lawsuit-defendants-use-of-video-surveillance-evidence-without-disclosure-in-affidavit/1003484801/?&er=NA