We use cookies to give you the best online experience. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies in accordance with our cookie policy. Learn more here.Close Me
Winter 2010/11 - The Superintendent of the Financial Services
Commission of Ontario (FSCO), on his own initiative struck a
committee made up of hand-picked medical experts with the request
that they make recommendations to change the longstanding
definition applied to injured car crash victims who sought the CAT
impairment definition.
Spring 2011 - The Expert Panel released its report, which, if
implemented, would dramatically restrict the number of people who
would meet the test for CAT impairment. May 2011 was established as
the deadline for any submissions to FSCO commenting on the Expert
Panel's report.
December 2011 - The Superintendent of FSCO prepared a private
report to the Minister of Finance, outlining his recommended
changes. The Minister did not release this report to the public or
other legislators.
March 2012 - The government buries a short paragraph in the
spring austerity budget promising to move forward with changes to
the CAT impairment definition. The Superintendent's report is
still not released to the public.
April 2012 - Standing Committee struck to consult and consider
auto insurance in Ontario, including the adequacy of the CAT
impairment definition.
June 2012 - in response to growing public pressure, the
Superintendent's report is finally released - largely mirroring
the recommendations from the Expert Panel's report. Finance
Minister Dwight Duncan promises further consultation, but the
reality is that a change in the definition of CAT impairment is a
regulatory change which can be made over the summer by the cabinet,
as an order-in-council.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general
guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought
about your specific circumstances.
To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.
Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.
Amato v. Welsh, 2013 ONCA 258 marks an interesting development in the law – it suggests the previously inviolable doctrine of absolute privilege which protects lawyers from suit may admit an exception.
As the current trend to self-representation increases, regardless the reason, one must ask if the tradition of lawyers appearing before Courts, above the Ontario Court of Justice, ought to continue the traditional legal wearing of robes.
The Supreme Court of Canada has recently considered when a civil court should bar claims on the basis that the issues in dispute were finally disposed of in a prior administrative proceeding.
A discussion on a recent case where the Supreme Court of Canada granted a leave application in the following case of interest to Canadian businesses and professions.
Many Canadian limitations statutes explicitly state that "no limitation period" is applicable to a proceeding in which the relief sought is a declaratory judgment.
