519 672 2121
Close mobile menu
Published on: 27 Nov 2020 By

Disputing the Minor Injury Guideline as a standalone issue

The Minor Injury Guideline (the “MIG”) establishes a framework for the treatment of alleged minor injuries in a statutory accident benefits claim. Available medical and rehabilitation benefits for predominantly minor injuries is limited to $3,500.00. However, in certain situations, an accide…

Continue reading the post titled Disputing the Minor Injury Guideline as a standalone issue
Published on: 26 Nov 2020 By

Justice won’t wait – Ontario Court of Appeal finds against plaintiff who waited four years to bring a lawsuit

If you have been injured because of the actions of another, don’t sit and wait to see how things turn out. Our law limits the time you have to start a law suit. The Ontario Court of Appeal in Baig v. Mississauga, 2020 ONCA 697 recently reinforced what is now a well-established principle of l…

Continue reading the post titled Justice won’t wait – Ontario Court of Appeal finds against plaintiff who waited four years to bring a lawsuit
Published on: 24 Nov 2020 By

Excluded benefits – General exclusions under Ontario’s no-fault accident benefits regime

In Ontario, an individual injured as a result of a motor vehicle accident can claim from the automobile insurance company for various benefits under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule (the “SABS”). The purpose of the SABS is to allow an insured individual access to necessary treatment …

Continue reading the post titled Excluded benefits – General exclusions under Ontario’s no-fault accident benefits regime
Published on: 17 Sep 2020 By

Court finds against insurer who held insured to an “absurd” standard

Lamb v Cooperators, 2020 ONSC 4955 You’ve been struck by a car. You have pain in part of your body. You’re not yet entirely sure where. Then, yes, okay it’s your arm. Your arm hurts. But where exactly. It’s more your shoulder. How bad is the pain though? You think you might have hit your...

Continue reading the post titled Court finds against insurer who held insured to an “absurd” standard