M.F.Z. v Aviva Insurance Canada (and its companion claim, J.C.C. v Aviva Insurance Company of Canada, which was argued on behalf of the passenger at the same time), a far-reaching beneficial decision for accident victims, was recently reconsidered by the executive chair of the Safety, Licensing Appeals and Standards Tribunals Ontario (“SLASTO”), Linda Lamoureux, at the insurer’s request.  

Read More about M.F.Z. V Aviva Insurance Canada – Beneficial Decision For Accident Victims

As of April 1, 2016, any disputes a car accident victim has with his or her insurance company must be heard by an adjudicator at the License and Appeals Tribunal (LAT).

Read More about Effects of the Latest License and Appeals Tribunal (LAT) Rules on Accident Benefit Claim Disputes

In Applicant and Aviva General Insurance, the Applicant sought Income Replacement Benefits (IRB) up to 104 weeks post-accident and ongoing.  He had been injured on August 10, 2015, and received IRBs from Aviva, his automobile insurer, from August 15, 2016 until November 15, 2016.  Aviva scheduled several medical examinations of the applicant during this period. Ultimately, it terminated his IRBs based on these examinations, which concluded that the applicant was able to perform the essential duties of his employment.

Read More about Accident Benefits Update – LAT Considers Causation in IRB Claim

In order to receive accident benefits under an auto insurance policy, a claimant must prove that they have been injured in an “Accident” as defined in the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule (SABS). Under the two-part test set out by the Supreme Court of Canada, the claimant must how that the injuries were a) caused by or as a result of b) the ordinary and well-known use and operation of a motor vehicle.

Read More about Car-Surfing Injury Is an “Accident” -Divisional Court Upholds Lat Decision