519 672 2121
Close mobile menu

In this 2015 appeal[1] by Mr. Scarlett to the Divisional Court, Director Delegate Evans’ decision was partially upheld.

First, the Divisional Court clearly found that the injured person has the burden of proving that his or her injuries fall outside of the Minor Injuries Guideline (“MIG”). Specifically, the Court held that the higher benefit limit is not the default for medical/rehabilitation coverage. If it is determined that an injured person’s injuries fall within the MIG, he or she is not entitled to the elevated level of benefits (including attendant care benefits, and medical/rehabilitation benefits over and above $3,500).

Second, the Divisional Court confirmed that while the MIG is referenced in the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule (“SABS”), it does not have the binding force of legislation, or the SABS. In order for the MIG to be “as binding as” legislation, it must be both:

  1. Expressly referred to in the statute/regulation, and
  2. Required for the proper interpretation of that portion of the statute/regulation.

[1] 2015 ONSC 3635.

News & Views

Blog

The more you understand, the easier it is to manage well.

View Blog

Neurological imaging to prove brain injury in medical negligence litigation

A brain injury is when cell death occurs in the brain, which can affect an individual’s capa…

Take note: employers may be responsible for paying CPP and EI premiums on employee tips and gratuities

According to a recent Federal Court of Appeal decision, employers who receive electronic tip…