Apologies, but no results were found for the requested archive. Perhaps searching will help find a related post.
We will travel to your home, hospital, or rehabilitation centre throughout eastern Ontario.
Many employers provide group benefits packages to their employees, including long-term disability (LTD) benefits. In addition, some employers also have an additional LTD policy to cover workplace injuries and illnesses caused at/by the workplace, called an occupational long-term disability policy. Some Ontario industries (eg. construction) are required by law to participate in a provincial workers’ compensation plan, such as WSIB. Some other companies have an occupational long-term policy in place to cover workplace illnesses and injuries that would be covered under the provincial workers’ compensation plan, if they had one. Mental and physical illnesses and injuries that are specifically related to the workplace are covered by occupational policies.
There are many differences between a group LTD policy and an occupational policy. For example, the definition of disability under an occupational policy differs from a group LTD policy. Under an occupational policy, the reason you must be unable to work due to an illness or injury arising out of and because of your employment. Under some occupational policies, you must be unable to do any occupation within the company you work for, that you are or may be qualified for that would be at a minimum of the same pay-rate as your pre-disability income. With group LTD policies, however, you may be unable to work due to an illness or injury sustained outside of the workplace.
To be eligible for benefits under a group policy, you are required to provide evidence that you became totally disabled due to an occupational illness or injury while covered under the group policy, You must show that your disability continued past the waiting period stated in the group policy and you have sought appropriate treatment.
The payout under an occupational policy is generally a higher percentage of your monthly income than through a group policy. To be eligible for benefits under this policy, you must prove that you became totally disabled due to an occupational illness while covered under the group policy. As with a group policy, you have to show that your disability continued past the waiting period and you are seeking appropriate treatment.
Although the two types of policies have differences, they also share some similarities. Both types of policies require that you be an active employee when your disability started. You must meet specific criteria as stated in both types of policies in order to qualify for disability benefits. As well, both policies usually have two different definitions of disability involving your ability to continue working in your own occupation or in any occupation, even if you were to be provided education or training in another occupation. With both types of policies, other types of benefits – such as Canada Pension Plan Disability Benefits – can be used to reduce your LTD benefit amounts. LTD policies have a waiting period before benefits are paid out, and benefits can end for a variety of reasons, such as you aren’t following the recommended treatments, if you return to work and are therefore gainfully employed, or if you turn 65.
If you were injured at work or developed an illness, such as anxiety or depression, and you decide to submit a claim, you will need to show when the illness/injury began or happened and how it relates to your workplace. It is best to include as much detail as possible, and attach an incident report (if there is one) and any other written evidence, doctor’s notes or reports regarding your illness or injury and treatments, prognosis and progression. The more information you provide, the better able your insurer will be able to assess what benefits you are entitled to.
Does no consent mean implied consent?
What happens if someone uses your vehicle without your consent and causes an accident or injury? Is this implied consent ?
In the recent case of Michaud-Shields v. Gough, the defendant driver had a suspended license and did not have the consent of the vehicle owner (Nancy) to drive the vehicle. The owner had made it clear to her son (Justin) that he would not be allowed to use her truck until his license was re-instated. He took the vehicle anyway, and it resulted in an uninsured automobile coverage claim.
The Highway Traffic Act, RSO 1990, c.H.8, sets out, at section,192(2):
A motor vehicle owner is liable for the losses arising out of another person’s negligent operation of his/her vehicle unless that vehicle was in the other person’s possession without the owner’s consent at the time the negligent act occurred.
Traders General, Justin’s carrier, motioned for a summary dismissal, based on their position that, although Nancy had not given Justin her verbal consent, he was driving with her implied consent, because the keys were not hidden from him in her home.
Justice de Sa, however, found that a “lack of appropriate diligence to prevent use” does not constitute implied consent for the vehicle’s use. The presence of the vehicle on the defendants’ premises, with the keys on a hook inside the door, did not represent “the right to possess the vehicle” or “an understanding that the vehicle may be driven”.
In arriving at his conclusion, Justice de Sa noted:
 Traders argues that Nancy did nothing to prevent Justin’s access or use to the vehicle, and she did not expressly forbid him to drive the vehicle while she was away. According to Traders, Nancy’s decision to leave the vehicle in the driveway with the keys on the hook essentially invited Justin to drive the vehicle. Given that Justin was left with “possession” of the vehicle, Traders maintains that Nancy should be liable for his actions while the vehicle was in his possession. According to Traders, consent should be implied in the circumstances, particularly in light of the broader policy issues in play.
 I don’t accept Traders’ proposed interpretation of consent. In my view, the suggested interpretation is far too broad. Traders’ position seems to impose liability on an owner for an accident unless steps are taken to prevent unauthorized use of the vehicle. The approach essentially requires that an owner hide their keys in order to avoid liability. However, in my view, this is hardly what is contemplated by s. 192(2) of the Highway Traffic Act. Nor does Traders’ suggested interpretation accord with the ordinary meaning of “consent”. […]
 No doubt permission to use the vehicle need not be express. If there is a general understanding that someone is allowed to use the vehicle, there need not be “express” permission to find liability in a particular case. However, to import a notion of liability on the basis of a lack of appropriate diligence to prevent use is to take the meaning of consent much too far. Indeed, if Traders’ position were accepted, arguably a thief would be found to have the consent of the owner to possess the vehicle. […]
 There must be an understanding between both the owner and the driver (either express or implied) that the driver is authorized by the owner to use the vehicle.
 In this case, on the evidence before me, there was no consent given to Justin to drive the vehicle. The evidence filed on the motion indicates the exact opposite. Both Justin and Nancy indicated that there was no consent. Traders does not contest their evidence on this point.
Justice de Sa dismissed the motion.
Lock your car doors. You may be liable to lose more than you think and it could affect your insurance claims.
What’s the worst that could happen when a car door is left unlocked in a driveway or parking lot? Most would assume that their car, or the belongings inside it, could be stolen. The consequences turned out to be much worse in a recent case involving an Ontario garage and dealership . The Supreme Court of Canada looked at the insurance claims and recently ruled that the owner of that garage owed a duty of care to a minor who was injured in one of their unlocked vehicles after it was stolen.
On a summer evening in 2006, two teenagers walked around their hometown with the intention of stealing from unlocked cars before finding themselves at Rankin’s Garage & Sales — a business that serviced and sold cars and trucks. The garage property was not secured, and the two found an unlocked Toyota Camry with keys left in the ashtray. Despite not having a driver’s license or any driving experience, one teen got behind the wheel and set off for a joyride with the plaintiff as his passenger. The vehicle crashed, and the plaintiff suffered a catastrophic brain injury.
Difference levels of responsibility in insurance claims
The victim sued and the Trial Judge determined that the garage owed a duty of care to the minor plaintiff and a jury apportioned 37% responsibility to the garage for the teen’s injuries. The primary issue on appeal was whether the Trial Judge had erred in finding that the garage owed a duty of care to the plaintiff in the circumstances, which included his participation in the theft. The Garage appealed.
The Court of Appeal decides on insurance claims
The Court of Appeal found it reasonably foreseeable in the circumstances that minors might steal an unlocked car with keys in it and injure themselves doing so. The basis for this conclusion was that Rankin’s Garage was easily accessible, there were no security measures to keep people off the property after hours, cars were left unlocked with keys in them, and there was evidence of a history of theft in the area and from the garage itself.
The Court of Appeal concluded that the garage should have had minors in mind when considering security measures, and that the care and control of many vehicles imposed a responsibility of securing them against minors. Securing vehicles by locking them and keeping keys secure was the garage’s responsibility.
We all know that there are possible dangers in leaving our vehicles unlocked, but we don’t often think beyond the obvious. A case like this should be a reminder that cars, machinery, and tools can cause harm to those who are not experienced in using them safely. Owners of these items have a responsibility to make sure that they do not fall into the wrong hands.
A business that leaves a car unlocked with the keys inside will not necessarily be responsible when someone is injured after the car is stolen, the Supreme Court has ruled. The business will only be responsible where it should have known both that the car could be stolen, and that someone could be injured due to it being driven unsafely.
We just had our first long weekend of the summer and Ontario Police have launched their Drive Safe Campaign in conjunction with National Road Safety Week. (May 15 – 21, 2018). Using the campaign slogan, “Who’s in Control?”, the police emphasized the need for drivers to consider the effects of vehicle safety systems, impaired driving, distracted driving, aggressive driving, and seatbelt safety. Throughout the campaign, police were also warning the public that the legalization and regulation of cannabis means that everyone will have to take extra care on the road.
“Drug-impaired driving is already an issue. With legalization and regulation of cannabis, we expect that, based on the experience in other jurisdictions, drug impaired driving will increase,” said Chief Superintendent Chuck Cox (Ontario Provincial Police). “This is not a new issue to police. We are already dealing with it and have people trained as Drug Recognition Evaluators (DREs) to conduct Standardized Field Sobriety Tests (SFST).”
As new legislation and safeguards come available to stop drug-impaired driving and give police powers to investigate and arrest drug impaired drivers, it is still not clear how the legalization of marijuana will impact police from a day-to-day operational perspective, including how it will affect police agencies’ budgets. There is concern that federal funding for police to deal with the impact of legalized cannabis may not be enough.
Drivers can expect increased police presence on our roads in the hopes of reducing accidents. Officers will be looking to make sure that motorists are in control of their vehicles. This includes distracted driving.
So far this year, OPP have seen 40 deaths related to distracted and inattentive driving. That is around twice the number of impaired-driving deaths. It’s the seventh year in a row that distracted driving has caused more deaths than impaired driving. These stats are startling and disheartening.
If you are a driver, commit to turning your phone to silent and driving without distractions. If you are a passenger in a vehicle and you see the driver is distracted, voice your concerns or choose not to ride with them
The minimum fine for distracted driving is $490 and three demerit points.