Published in the K-W OIAA September 2015 Bulletin by Dan Strigberger On August 26, 2015, the Ontario Legislature filed Bill 251/15, which amends the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule in a number of remarkable ways. For the most part, the amendments…Read more →
The Court of Appeal for Ontario has released a decision dealing with whether an owner of an ATV can be held vicariously liable for a driver’s negligence, even though no consent was given to operate the vehicle. The decision is…Read more →
The Ontario Divisional Court has allowed an insurer’s appeal in a case deciding when interest begins to run on attendant care benefits that are found to be owing under the SABS. In Grigoroff v Wawanesa, the plaintiff was involved in…Read more →
A few days ago, an Ontario judge ruled that Uber is not operating as a taxi broker and that it has not breached any city bylaws. While this is a victory for Uber, this ruling does nothing to solve the…Read more →
On June 18, 2015, the Digital Privacy Act received Royal Assent and is now law in Canada. The Act amends PIPEDA in a number of ways, but there are three major changes that insurers need to know about: Organizations must…Read more →
In Unifund Assurance Company v. D.E., 2015ONCA0423 and C.S. v. TD Home and Auto Insurance Company, 2015ONCA0424, companion decisions released on June 11th, 2015 by the Ontario Court of Appeal, the motion judges’ decisions that found the homeowners’ insurers were…Read more →
In February, Aviva Canada announced its plan to offer an overland flood endorsement to homeowners in Ontario and Alberta. True to its word, the company launched its Overland Water Endorsement early last week. The endorsement is available to Aviva’s policyholders…Read more →
In Morgan v. Saquing, 2015 ONSC 2647, a comprehensive 60-page decision released on June 4th, 2015, Ontario Superior Court Justice Glustein found the plaintiff, inter alia, failed to meet the Ontario Insurance Act automobile claims “threshold”. His Honour held that…Read more →
The Supreme Court of Canada has reversed the Ontario Court of Appeal’s decision in Zurich v. Chubb. The claimant was driving a Ford Windstar that she had rented from Wheels4Rent, a car rental agency. On September 23, 2006, she had…Read more →
Almost four years after launching public consultations, the federal government has published proposed regulations governing the demutualization of property and casualty insurance companies. The regulations will come into force on the day they are published in the Canada Gazette, Part…Read more →
I’m featured in the news report below on Uber and insurance.
Mon, Mar 23: Customers who used ride-sharing services like UberX may be at risk if the driver is involved in an accident. As Sean O’Shea reports insurance experts say drivers are violating insurance rules and may be putting themselves and their fares in jeopardy.
Your browser does not support frames. Click here to view the frameless video..
The promise of driverless cars continues to ramp up, with tests on public roads occurring or planned all over the world. I’ve spoken before about the emergence of this technology, specifically on the importance of standards in governing how autonomous…Read more →
Using the family car to drive for Uber carries the potential for serious consequences in terms of inadequate insurance protection. Until the legal issues surrounding Uber’s business model are resolved, it doesn’t appear likely the industry will come up with a solution.Read more →
The Court of Appeal for Ontario has held that a hospital can be sued (in a proposed class action) for a privacy breach.
In Hopkins v. Kay, the class plaintiff alleged that her records as a patient at the Peterborough Regional Heath Centre were improperly accessed. She based her claim on the common law tort of intrusion upon seclusion, set out in Jones v. Tsige.
The hospital brought a Rule 21 motion to dismiss the claim on the ground that the Personal Health Information Protection Act (“PHIPA”) is an exhaustive code that ousts the jurisdiction of the Superior Court to entertain any common law claim for invasion of privacy rights in relation to patient records.Read more →