Published on:

By

Most people aren’t familiar with how car insurance disputes work until they have to go through the process.

Most would think that if there’s a dispute for benefits, they can sue the insurer which is denying those benefits and then a Judge can decide. That seems simple and straight forward. Unfortunately, simple and straight forward is not the way which car accident cases work in Ontario.

Long ago, accident victims had the right to sue the insurance company which was denying their accident benefits following a car accident. That case could be heard by a Judge, in regular Court. The court date however would only trigger if the parties had attempted and failed a mediation at the Financial Services Commission of Ontario (FSCO). That way, the parties gave it an honest try to see if they could resolve their dispute at mediation, without the need for litigation in Court. This made a lot of sense, and was easy for unsophisticated and inexperienced litigants to understand.

But the rights of accident victims to sue over denied accident benefits following a car accident were stripped from everyone in Ontario. Yes: imagine that. In a democracy, the government took away your right to sue, and access to the Courts.

Instead, innocent accident victims were required to have their disputes heard at the License Appeals Tribunal (LAT). The LAT is not a Court. It’s a tribunal. There are no Judges at the LAT. Instead, there are adjudicators who work there, who may, or may not, have any experience hearing or ruling on car accident cases. The barrier to entry to become an adjudicator at the LAT is much lower than the barrier to entry to become a Judge of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice.

Since the LAT became the ruling body over accident benefit disputes, it’s been an unfriendly place to accident victims (likely by design), and surrounded with controversy. It’s a really strange place.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

The Ontario Government has proposed legislation to create “special economic zones” in order to speed up large scale projects such as the Ring of Fire, and a proposed tunnel under highway 401 in order to reduce traffic.

The Bill is called Protect Ontario by Unleashing our Economy Act (Bill 5 ) detailed of which can be found here. 

As an aside, I love it how governments name their bills. Be forewarned. The name of bills often does the exact opposite of it’s name. It’s a PR play in an attempt at misdirection (kinda like how a magician pulls off a magic trick). It gets the public to look one way; or to think about the legislation in one way; in order to misdirect the public from seeing all of the bad stuff happening which is actually going to happen in a different direction. It’s a way for the government to create a narrative in a way which directs people away from the ugly truth of what’s actually going to take place. The Bill, called “Protect Ontario by Unleashing our Economy Act”, could also be aptly named  the “Stripping All of Your Rights so We Can Dig Out Minerals and Build Stuff Really Really Quickly Act“.

If passed, the new law would allow the Ontario government to disregard any provincial laws currently in place (such as provincial environment, labour or insurance act rules) in order to get the project done as quickly as possible, without any red tape. The bill cuts all of the checks and balances in place to protect the public and to protect the environment. It’s being sold to the public as a way to kick start the economy over the threat of Donald Trump and tariffs being imposed by the United States on Canada and Ontario.

It might sound like a good idea, until you pause and think about the ramifications of the proposed bill to plow through all other bills.

For starters, the bill seems completely undemocratic, and borderline totalitarian. The piece of legislation allows the government to do whatever it wants; ignoring legislation what has existed for many years. The rules and laws won’t apply to them once this piece of legislation has passed, and is used. Even if it’s challenged in the Courts as a violation of a Charter Right, the government can enact the Notwithstanding Clause in order to get their way. The Ford Government has used the Notwithstanding Clause before; meaning that they won’t be afraid to use it again. It gives the government total and complete control. That’s what happens when a majority government has been elected. It’s their “mandate“. But, if this piece of legislation were put to a vote, I doubt that the majority on Ontarians would stand behind the idea of giving such power to the government.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

It’s not mistake that Long term disability claims use the word “long“. Long is used for good reason.

Long is meant to define the duration of the period from the claimant’s first day off work, to the time period they are eligible to receive long term disability benefits. It’s a “long” period in contrast to a “short” period as found in short term disability claims.

Long also defines the duration for which the claimant is eligible to receive long term disability benefits. That period is longer than you would find in short term disability cases. In most long term disability cases, the eligibility period, or payment period, generally goes up to the age of 65. But, this is fact dependent upon the wording contained in the long term disability policy. In contrast, the duration of short term disability benefits is generally a few months (90 days, 120 days). This too is fact dependent and is specific to the wording of the policy. In any event, the use of the word “long” is meant to distinguish from the use of the word “short” in the case of disability policies.

For personal injury lawyers, and for many disability claimants, the use of the word “long” can also mean something completely different. It can be seen as a reminder to the claimant that it may take a long time to get an answer from the insurance company on whether or not the claim for benefits has been approved or denied.

In other circumstances, it can take a long time for the claimant to get paid their benefits, even after they’ve been approved.

For lawyers, the use of the word “long” is a gentle reminder that long term disability cases take time get through the Courts, or to ultimately resolve by way of Judgment or out of Court Settlement. Make no mistake, there is nothing “short” about a long term disability case once it’s been litigated.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

When an international student or a visitor to Canada has a serious accident in Ontario, it can get very complicated.

Who will pay for the medical treatment? The hospital visits? The ambulance? The out of pocket expenses? What about the loss of opportunity to pursue their studies, or the wage loss from a part time job?

These are really hard questions, and all depend on the facts of the case, along with the coverage of the injured party.

For starters, people in Canada on Student Visas, or a Visitors Permit won’t have access to the publicly funded OHIP system, the same way that Canadian Resident will. This is why it’s so important for the student or visitor to Canada to make sure that they have proper health care coverage before they come to Canada.

Having bad insurance will end up in a less desirable result. Just because an insurance plan is the cheapest, doesn’t mean that it’s the best. Often, you get what you pay for. Nobody ever expects to be involved in a serious accident, but if one happens, it sure helps to have a responsive and supportive insurer; rather than an insurance company which is the habit of denying claims, or being non-responsive to their insured.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

Ontario Courts, along with the civil litigation process are governed by a complex set of rules. These rules are made by people who have an understanding of how the law works, how cases work, and what problems our civil justice system is facing, and how those problems should be addressed.

Every once in a while, the rules are examined and tweaked, in order to better administer civil justice and help the system operate more efficiently.

The Civil Rules Review (CRR) was launched in January 2024, under the leadership of Co-Chairs Justice Cary Boswell of the Superior Court of Justice and a partner at a law firm. The mandate of the CRR is to conduct a comprehensive and complete review of the Rules and identify, through consultation, areas where targeted changes to the Rules would increase efficiency and access to justice for Ontarians, reduce complexity and costs, maximize the effective use of court resources, reduce delay, and leverage technical solutions.

The CRR Group has made a lot of recommendations, which, in my opinion, fail to achieve the goals set out by the CRR. In fact, what these recommendations will bring will be greater injustice to Plaintiffs seeking justice through the civil justice system. The proposed reforms favour Defendants, who need not work hard to advance a claim. It will embolden Defendants to sit back, and really not do much until absolutely necessary to do so.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

Let’s say that you get involved in a car accident during the course of your employment. What do you do? Who can you sue? Is it a WSIB claim? Is it a car accident case? Or is it both?

This issue comes up a lot in the practice of a personal injury lawyer, who does a lot of car accident work.

Let’s make something very clear. You cannot both claim WSIB benefits and sue, and claim accident benefits at the same time.

You you only pick one route. That decision, is called an “election“.

The Plaintiff can either “elect” to receive WSIB benefits and go the WSIB route.

Or the Plaintiff can opt out of WSIB, and “elect” to receive accident benefits, and go the suing route.

The Plaintiff cannot go both routes.

Sometimes, a Plaintiff does not have a choice and must go through the WSIB route. Here is an example of such a case:

The Plaintiff is driving his/her company car enroute to a jobsite. The Plaintiff gets involved in a terrible car accident. The car accident is not the Plaintiff’s fault, and the Plaintiff wants to sue the at fault driver for his/her damages and pain and suffering. But, as it turns out, the at fault driver was also driving a company car for a job. Both parties were deemed to be Schedule 1 employees who were in the course of their employment at the time of the car accident. Even though the parties worked for two completely different and unrelated employers, the fact that both were in the course of their employment at the time of the car accident is significant and presents a barrier to personal injury litigation. The reason is that the law says that a Schedule 1 employee in the course of his/her employment cannot sue another Schedule 1 employee who was also in the course of his/her employment (even for a car accident case!).  As a result, even though the Plaintiff may want to go the personal injury litigation route, s/he cannot do so. WSIB acts as a shield protecting the employers (and the at fault driver) from any litigation. The injured accident victim has no choice but to pursue WSIB benefits. The injured accident victim can try to advance a claim for damages against the at fault driver; but the case will in all likelihood get kicked out of Court on Application to the WSIB.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

On April 1st, the Ministry of the Attorney General released its Civil Rules Review Consultation Paper. It’s 122 pages in length, making it either the most elaborate April Fools prank on litigators I’ve ever seen; or something poorly thought out on many levels, including its release date.

If any of these changes are adopted, they are game changes in a bad way. It’s clear to me that the people behind these proposed changes aren’t the ones on the front lines of personal injury litigation; or aren’t listening to those who work on the front lines who see cases day in, day out.

These changes, if adopted will present significant barriers to access to justice for the general public. They will also drive litigation further towards AI in a bad way, thereby taking the human element out of litigation. Which is crazy to think given that the ultimate end of a case is trial, which is entirely based on testimony from people (not AI machines or algorithms). The proposals place a lot of emphasis on pre-litigation forms; which creates unnecessary make work projects for litigants. These are artificial barriers to litigating matters which should not exist. They are being proposed simply because the Courts can’t handle the volume of cases. These forms are a backdoor way to preventing litigants to advance their claims.

Here’s something I liked about the proposed rule changes: it makes it easier for lawyers to get off the record. Instead of wasting the Court’s time with motions to get off the record, the Working Group proposes that a lawyer should be entitled to requisition an order to be removed as counsel of record when the following preconditions (the “Preconditions”) have been met: (i) there are no deadlines (agreed upon or imposed by the Court or the Rules) or Court attendances within the next 90 days; (ii) there is no trial or dispositive hearing scheduled to be heard within the next 180 days; and (iii) the client is not under a disability. The requisition will need to be made on notice to the client and opposing parties. The lawyer seeking to get off the record will need to certify that the Preconditions have been met.  That’s great! Saves time, money and Court resources. This change ought to have been adopted 20+ years ago. The crazy thing is that a lawyer can get appointed as easily as filing a Notice of Appointment, or filing a Statement of Claim or Statement of Defence, or Notice of Change of Lawyer. But, if a lawyer has to get off the record, there’s still a whole song and dance that needs to go with it. The proposal is that the song and dance eliminated with the filing of a simple form (Can you hear the AI Bots grinning!?!)

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

Every school has an Audio Visual Guy (The AV Guy). This was the person responsible for setting up the televisions, videos, slides, speakers, and other sort of audio/visual presentations in schools.

The AV Guy had a tiny office with no windows and poor ventilation. The AV office was once a broom closet, but was converted to accommodate the AV Guy with a small dated desk so that the AV Guy could sit in peace with all of the school’s AV supplies while simultaneously eating his lunch in privacy. The AV Guy’s office would be stacked to the wall with TVs, VCRs, speakers, mics, computers, receivers, and lots and lots of wires and cables! Oh those wires and cables. Some neatly folded. Others a tangled mess, hanging off walls, or anything else standing vertically. There were enough unkept wires and cables to cause a kid get tangled, and slip and fall. Perhaps the hazards of the AV office is why I became a personal injury lawyer, but that’s a another story.

In any event, have you given much thought as to why school’s have dedicated AV Guys? When you look at the position critically, they are not educators, nor are they custodians of the school. So why are education resources spent on AV personnel?

It’s because AV Guys are very important to schools and to educating students.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

Goldfinger Injury Lawyers handles a lot of dog bite, and dog attack cases. Brian Goldfinger’s first case that drew media attention was a dog bite case whereby a woman along with her therapy dog were viciously attacked by three pit bulls in Toronto. The case drew media attention because of the severity of the injuries to the victim, the severity of the injuries to the therapy dog, which eventually died; along with the fact that the dogs which did the attacking were pit bulls, or pit bull mixed breeds.

Liability in dog attack cases is at times, cut and dry.

Did the dog attack someone? Yes or No?

If the answer is yes, then there is a reverse onus which attaches to the dog owner. Regardless of whether or not the dog owner knew of the attack, or knew of the dog’s propensity to attack, or to be aggressive, the dog owner will be on the hook for the actions of his/her dog. At law, we call this concept “strict liability”. If the dog was on a leash, yet still attacked, the Defendant will still be at fault for the actions/aggressive of his/her dog. If the dog was not on a leash, well, then the actions of the dog, and the negligence of the dog owner are plain as day. Certainly, the parties will want to know if the Plaintiff provoked the attack, and this will be a factor in assessing liability, or any form of contribution.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

Last week I was interviewed by a journalist at the Globe & Mail newspaper (remember those?).

She was writing an article on car insurance, and increasing insurance rates in general in Ontario. She wanted to know what a boots on the ground personal injury lawyer was seeing.

I shared with her a few trends which I had observed over the past 12 months:

  1. Premiums were rising for drivers even if they had outstanding driving records with no claims
  2. Part of the reason which premiums appeared to be on the rise was the increase of auto thefts; coupled with the rise in prices for new vehicles, labour and auto parts. I suspect that the looming tariffs and trade war won’t help in that area. Some reports are suggesting that the price of new cars will go up between 15-25%
  3. But don’t fool yourself: insurance companies will find every excuse in the books to increase premiums. They will deliver less coverage, while charging you more money. You are paying more, and getting less in return.
  4. Our personal injury lawyers have noticed an uptick in uninsured claims.

What is an uninsured claim you might ask? Good question!

Continue reading →

OTLA American Association for Justice Lexpert Ranked Lawyer
Contact Information
Toronto Office
167 Sheppard Ave W
Toronto, ON M2N 1M9
Phone: (416) 730-1777 Toll Free: (877) 730-1777 Fax: (416) 730-0955
London Meeting Office
341 Talbot St
London, ON N6A 2R5
Toll Free: (877) 730-1777
Peterborough Meeting Office
420 George St N #313
Peterborough, ON K9H 3R5
Toll Free: (877) 730-1777
Kitchener Meeting Office
290 King St E
Kitchener, ON N2G 2L3
Toll Free: (877) 730-1777
Owen Sound Meeting Office
1051 2nd Ave E
Owen Sound, ON N4K 2H8
Toll Free: (877) 730-1777

Past results are not indicative of future results.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Please do not include any confidential or sensitive information in a contact form, text message, or voicemail. The contact form sends information by non-encrypted email, which is not secure. Submitting a contact form, sending a text message, making a phone call, or leaving a voicemail does not create an attorney-client relationship.

Copyright © 2025, Goldfinger Law
JUSTIA Law Firm Blog Design