Legal Blog
Eliminate insurance threshold, judge says
Tuesday, November 27, 2007
Ontario has put too many hurdles ahead of innocent victims who seek compensation for the pain of vehicle injuries, a learned judge has suggested.
For the complete story click below:
- Top
- Comments
Winter Season
Wednesday, November 21, 2007
Ontario winters are tough. Every year poor weather conditions cause numerous accidents such as motor vehicle accidents and slip and falls. Many of the unfortunate individuals involved in these accidents end up sustaining minor or serious injuries.
As this winter approaches, ensure you develop safe driving techniques and be aware of dangerous unskilled drivers around you. Also, remember to wear clothing that is suitable especially adequate footwear.
In the event you have the unfortunate luck of becoming involved in an accident ensure you seek legal representation immediately. Dealing with the insurance companies is a daunting and tiring process. You need a lawyer that has a solid track record for success and is skilled with dealing with insurance adjusters.
Cosmetic Surgery
Tuesday, November 20, 2007
The death of a 32 year old Toronto real estate agent, Krista Stryland last month has finally promoted The College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario to start looking into cosmetic surgery.
Ms. Stryland died after undergoing liposuction at Dr. Behnaz Yazdanfar's Toronto Cosmetic Clinic. Dr. Behnaz's clinic is still operational and interestingly, has not posted any press release on her website about the death. It is important to note that Dr. Yazdanfar is not a surgeon. The Toronto Star reported today that, many family physicians in Ontario advertise themselves as cosmetic surgeons and have no specialty designation or training.
The College has said it is now developing new rules and policies with respect to cosmetic surgery. The Toronto Star reported that one of the new rules is that the title "surgeon" will be reserved for physicians certified as surgical specialists by recognized medical bodies. Plastic Surgeons are qualified as specialists because of the years of post-graduate medical training they receive. Regular family doctors performing cosmetic surgery do not.
The College has revealed that it will be investigating 16 doctors who perform high risk cosmetic surgery. An additional, 20 doctors have been put on notice. At this time, The College is refusing to provide the names of the doctors.
For more information on cosmetic surgery click below:
The College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario's website
If you have been injured by a poorly performed cosmetic surgery call the law firm of Neinstein & Associates, Toronto's top personal injury law firm. We specialize in medical malpractice cases. Our dedicated team of professionals will advance your claim vigorously and negotiate a settlement to your favour.
Food Poisoning
Friday, November 16, 2007
Food safety is important in an ever growing society where products are produced on a large scale for mass consumers. When purchasing products from stores or restaurants we often overlook safety concerns of food and go on the basis that those who have manufactured and distributed the products have done so based on safety standards.
However, alerts for food products and recalls occur weekly. While this information is readily available the public does not always find out.
Food poisoning is a serious concern and is the focus of much litigation in the United States.
Food poisoning can lead to serious illness and in some cases even death. Important to note that food poisoning can be extremely detrimental to children, infants and seniors.
When faced with such situations, always seek legal representation to ensure your rights are protected and preserved at the outset.
Call the law firm of Neinstein & Associates, Toronto's top personal injury law firm for a free consultation. At Neinstein & Associates we specialize in injured or ill clients and product liability cases.
Visit the website of Neinstein & Associates for the latest information about food recalls.
Taser Gunned to Death
Thursday, November 15, 2007
On October 14, 2007, Polish, immigrant Robert Dziekanski arrived in British Columbia and was detained for an unknown reason. Dziekanski after 10 hours of detention, became agitated and frustrated. Shortly after, four RCMP officers arrived and ended up using a taser gun on Dziekanski that shot 50,000 volts of electricity into him, twice.
A few moments later Dziekanski was pronounced dead.
In 2003 almost 18 people died in Canada as a result of being stunned by Tasers.
This story has now made international headlines and it's really due to the fact that the entire episode was taped by a teenager. Today, Vancouver authorities released the tape.
Given, the stats surrounding tasers and now this new death, law enforcement agencies should stop using taser guns.
Dziekanski was coming to Canada to be with his mother. His mother is now on a waiting list for psychiatric care due to the loss of her son. She has retained a lawyer in British Columbia.
This is a most unfortunate event that could have been prevented.
It will be interesting to see what happens with this case given the recent Supreme Court ruling regarding tort actions against police officers.
Mr. Longo of Neinstein & Associates is currently representing individuals who have been the victims of taser gun incidents and actions against law enforcement agencies. If you have been involved in a similar incident call the law firm of Neinstein & Associates for a free consultation.
Click below for the video:
Go-kart is an automobile
Tuesday, November 13, 2007
Adams v. Pineland Amusements Ltd. et al. (2006) the party had been injured on a go-kart. The Defendant insurance company brought a motion to the court for a determination of a question of law. In addition, the court was also required to determine whether a go-kart was considered an automobile.
The court discussed the test to be used in determine whether a vehicle is an automobile:
A number of cases have established the following approach is to be taken in deciding whether a particular vehicle is an "automobile":
Is the vehicle an "automobile" in "ordinary parlance"?
If not, is the vehicle defined as an "automobile" in the wording of the insurance policy?
If not, is the vehicle an "automobile" within the enlarged definition of automobile in any relevant statute?
In the end the court held:
As a go-kart is not, in ordinary parlance, an "automobile", and since "automobile" is not defined in the insurance policy, the question is whether a go-kart is an "automobile" within the enlarged definition of "automobile" in any relevant statute. Section 224(1) of the Insurance Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. I.8 provides that "automobile" includes a motor vehicle required under any Act to be insured under a motor vehicle liability policy. Vehicles that are not, in ordinary parlance, "automobiles", are automobiles if they are motor vehicles required to be insured. Section 1(1) of the Compulsory Automobile Insurance Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.25 ("CAIA") defines "motor vehicle" to have the same meaning as in the Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8 ("HTA"). The HTA definition of "motor vehicle" includes "any other vehicle propelled or driven otherwise than by muscular power". A go-kart, then, is a "motor vehicle" within the HTA definition. Section 2(1) of the CAIA provides that no owner or lessee of a motor vehicle shall operate the motor vehicle, or cause or permit the motor vehicle to be operated, on a highway unless the motor vehicle is insured under a contract of automobile insurance. If operated on a highway, then, a go-kart would require insurance under s. 2(1) of the CAIA. Therefore, it is an automobile.
Total Recall
Thursday, November 08, 2007
As we near the end of 2007 it seems this was the year of the recall for toy manufacturers and distributors. Just today, there was yet another recall of two children toys.
The sudden surge of these recalls can either be due to more testing or simply coincidence. Whatever the reason the problem is serious.
So serious, that this summer Mattel's Chairman & CEO actually developed a website dedicated to toy safety. Mattel also issued a world wide public apology. Voluntary Safety Recall Facts
As the holiday season nears consumers should be cautious when purchasing toy products. However, to what extent can consumers protect themselves? The people who purchased the products that have now been recalled did so, based on the reputable brand name such as Mattel. They assumed they were purchasing a product that underwent numerous testing by the manufacturers and distributors and was approved by our government.
Protect your family, when purchasing products ensure they meet Canadian safety standards. Also, do some quick internet research to see whether anybody has ever reported an injury or abnormal experience while using the product.
It is important to remember that if you or a loved one has been injured or has had to seek medical attention because of a product that you call a lawyer immediately.
At the law firm of Neinstein & Associates we specialize in product liability call for a free quote.
Banned Beef
Tuesday, November 06, 2007
This weekend the Canadian Food Inspection Agency issued a press release recalling beef products from Rancher's Beef Ltd due to an illness in the US attributed to e-coli. If you or anyone you know has become ill and or sought medical attention call the law firm of Neinstein & Associates for a free consultation.
M & M Shrimp Ban
Monday, November 05, 2007
The Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) issued a press release this month advising that breaded shrimp products distributed by M & M Meat Shops and manufactured by Henry H. Misner Limited should not be consumed.
CFIA has issued the warning based on the food products containing Nitrofurans. Henry H. Misner has already started to recall the products.
If you or anyone you know has become ill or sought medical attention due to the consumption of this product please call the law firm of Neinstein & Associates for a free consultation.
http://www.inspection.gc.ca/english/corpaffr/recarapp/2007/20071102e.shtml
Dismissal without costs entitles Defendant to substantial indemnity
Thursday, November 01, 2007
This was an action brought for damages in the amount of one million dollars for complex medical issues.
The outcome of Dunstan v. Flying J Travel Plaza [2007] O.J. No. 4089 is unfortunate. The Defendants had served an offer to settle on the terms the action be dismissed without costs. The offer was made on February 26, 2007.
The offer was not accepted by the Plaintiffs and the matter went to trial and the Plaintiffs received nothing. At this point the Defendant argued for substantial indemnity costs to be applied to their costs from the date of their February 26, 2007 offer as per Rule 49 of Ontario's Rules of Civil Procedure.
The trial judge did not allow the Defendant to recover substantial indemnity costs pursuant to Rule 49 because, the Defendant did not exceed its offer to settle and the Plaintiff received nothing. "In this case, Dunstan did not recover a judgment of any value."
Nonetheless, the trial judge did still allow for costs to be recovered by the Defendant on a substantial indemnity and partial indemnity basis. The trial judge did this pursuant to Rule 57 that allows the court discretion to consider numerous factors when assessing costs.
In the end the Plaintiff was to pay the Defendant 70,000.00 plus GST plus disbursements of $30,000.00 inclusive of GST.
This is a serious award against the Plaintiff who likely is not able to pay.