Three motions were heard before the Ontario Superior Court of Justice this summer which have further clarified when a defence medical examination is justified. The three motions are: Marfo v. Ahmed, 2016 ONSC 396 [Marfo], Boulet v. Sir Corp. 2016 ONSC 5379 [Boulet] and Mork v. Sanghera, 2016 ONSC 5108 [Mork]. In the Mork decision… Read More…
I was involved in a hit and run car accident, who do I sue?
In the decision Yu Peng Ding et al v John Doe et al 2016 ONSC 1690, the Plaintiff was the driver of a silver van that crashed with a guard rail when he allegedly swerved to avoid a tractor-trailer. The investigating officer never confirmed the personal identification of the driver of the tractor-trailer. The Plaintiff… Read More…
What is an Auto Accident for the purpose of Accident Benefits?
An accident is defined under Section 3(1) of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule – Effective September 1, 2010 (“Schedule”) as: an incident in which the use or operation of an automobile directly causes an impairment or directly causes damage to any prescription eyewear, denture, hearing aid, prosthesis or other medical or dental device. Keeping this… Read More…
Inclusion of a Claim against a Plaintiff’s Ontario Automobile Insurer is not enough to create a Real and Substantial Connection to Ontario.
On August 11, 2012, Mr. Westfall was driving his motorcycle near the City of Vernon, British Columbia. Ms. Forsythe was a passenger. They were on a road trip to visit the hot springs. Suddenly, Westfall lost control of his motorcycle and there was an accident allegedly caused by an unidentified driver. Forsythe suffered a severe… Read More…
Prejudgement Interest Change is Not Retroactive
Lawyers have been arguing the past several months as to whether the change to the prejudgement interest rate should be applied to claims that occurred prior to the amendment. On January 1, 2015, section 258.3(8.1) of the Insurance Act came into force. The amendment says that the 5% prejudgment interest rate for non-pecuniary losses in… Read More…
Courts can order assessments by non-health practitioners
Whether the physical or mental condition of a party to a proceeding is in question, the court, on motion, may order the party to undergo a physical or mental examination by one or more health practitioners. The parties in the recent Court of Appeal decision Ziebenhaus v. Bahlieda 2015 ONCA 471 agreed that a vocational… Read More…
I was in a motorcycle accident, who is at fault?
With the nice weather in full swing, riders are excited to bring out their motorcycles. It is important riders take precautions to stay safe and that drivers on the road take proper care around motorcyclists. Unfortunately, the motorcycle accidents we work on often involve the most serious and fatal injuries. Unlike cars, trucks and other… Read More…
Join us at Up For Debate event
Virk Personal Injury Law is proud to be a partner for the upcoming Up For Debate event scheduled to be held in Hamilton next Wednesday. There’s a federal election on our horizon. Help create dialogue about the issues that are important to women and girls. Click here to register today! http://www.eventbrite.ca/e/up-for-debate-tickets-16898100674?aff=estw
Court decides change to PJI is retroactive
On January 1, 2015, section 258.3(8.1) of the Insurance Act came into force. The amendment says that the 5% prejudgment interest rate for non-pecuniary losses in motor vehicle accident claims no longer applies. Instead, prejudgement interest for non-pecuniary losses is to be calculated using the rate applicable to pecuniary losses, i.e. the bank rate in… Read More…
We are proud sponsors of the upcoming Acquired Brain Injury conference
Virk Personal Injury Law is a proud sponsor of the 2015 Hamilton Health Sciences 22nd Annual Acquired Brain Injury Conference. The conference is scheduled to be held on May 14th and 15th at the Hamilton Convention Centre. To find out more, visit: http://www.hamiltonhealthsciences.ca/body.cfm?id=2127