The decision by Arbitrator Alves in Anglin v. State
Farm [FSCO A11-000817] resolves the issue of whether an
Insurer is able to deduct ODSP payments from non-earner benefits.
In this case, at the time of the accident, the Claimant was
receiving ODSP (Ontario Disability Support Program) benefits. State
Farm argued that it should be deductible pursuant to section 60 of
the SABS (Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule) (now section 47) as
it should be considered a collateral benefit.
On review, Arbitrator Alves held that section 58(1) (now section
60) provides that the "Insurer shall pay benefits under the
Regulation even though the insured person is entitled to, or has
received, benefits under an Act administered by the Ministry of
Community and Social Services for Ontario or under similar
legislation in another jurisdiction."
Arbitrator Alves noted that pursuant to the Ontario
Disability Support Program Act and the related Regulation,
non-earner benefits are considered income and are therefore
deductible from any ODSP benefits paid to a Claimant. As a result,
the Arbitrator found that there was no double compensation to the
The Arbitrator did not consider whether ODSP benefits are
deductible from income replacement benefits. However, as non-earner
benefits and income replacement benefits are characterized in the
same fashion in the Ontario Disability Support Program, it is clear
that an Insurer is not able to deduct these payments from income
replacement benefits either.
Under B.C.'s former and current Limitation Act, the limitation period for a Plaintiff's claim can be extended on the basis of a Defendant having acknowledged in writing some liability for the cause of action.
Automobile drivers, like fine wine, tend to get better with age. Older drivers can draw on a wealth of experience from their years on the road to assist them when faced by a variety of dangerous conditions.
The insurance industry will be interested in Ledcor Construction Ltd v. Northbridge Indemnity Insurance Co because of principles the Supreme Court of Canada applied to the "faulty workmanship" exclusion in a Builders' Risk policy.
For the first time in BC, a Court has decided that an insured is entitled to special costs, rather than the lower tariff costs, solely because they were successful in a coverage action against their insurer.
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).