October 2009 Archives

By Leanne Goldstein B.A., LL.B. 

Associate Lawyer, David Share Associates, Lawyers

 

In order to successfully litigate a motor vehicle accident tort claim, it is not enough to prove that the "at fault" driver collided with your vehicle, or did something negligent on the road that resulted in an accident. It is also necessary to prove that the negligence of the other driver caused your injuries and subsequent medical problems.

 

This is the concept of "causation", which is fraught with complexities given that most accident victims are not 21 year old athletes that have never had an injury or illness in their lifetime. Most motor vehicle accident victims have a history of health issues and of underlying health problems that have affected them at one time.   

 

The "thin skull principle" of causation, which has developed in our law, makes the "at fault" driver liable for your injuries even if the injuries are unexpectedly severe owing to a pre-existing condition. Where the negligent conduct of an "at fault" driver "materially contributes" to the occurrence of the post accident problems, the "at fault" driver may be found liable for all of the injuries sustained as a result of the motor vehicle accident.

 

Essentially, a "thin skull plaintiff" is someone who has a latent, pre-existing condition or vulnerability to injury which is brought to the fore by the motor vehicle accident and which would not have presented itself had the accident not occurred. So for example, someone who suffered abuse as a child may be more fragile psychologically and more vulnerable if they suffer an adverse life event. Accordingly, such a person might be more likely to suffer more severe depression as a result of a motor vehicle accident that appears to have been minor. Had the accident not occurred, this person may never have experienced severe depression.

 

This is to be distinguished from the "crumbling skull" plaintiff which is someone who has a pre-existing illness or medical condition which would have come to the fore even if the accident had not occurred. For the "crumbling skull" plaintiff the accident may, however, have accelerated the presentation or evolution of the illness or medical condition and this may entitle that person to some measure of compensation in the appropriate circumstances.

 

If it cannot be established that the motor vehicle accident caused or contributed to the plaintiff's condition, which would have remained the same even if the accident had not occurred, causation will not be established and no compensation can be recovered.

 

Medical evidence is essential in establishing causation and treatment providers and medical experts are often called upon to address this issue. Since there are often multiple causes for a person's inability to function post accident, navigating through the medical minutiae and advocating effectively for the injured party becomes the task of the personal injury lawyer.

 

Motor vehicle accident law is a very specialized area of the law and it is important to consult legal practitioners who have the necessary expertise to analyze the medical evidence and legal issues in order to ascertain the viability of your claim.

 

 

 

 

By David Share L.L.B.

President, David Share Associates, Lawyers

The recent Ontario Superior Court decision in Campos v. Sun Life, 2009 CanLII 43186 raises once again the complex issue of whether disputes regarding long term disability benefits belong in the Courts or before an Arbitrator.    The case involves a proposed class action for nurse members of the Ontario Nurses' Association, and whether or not retirement benefits under the Canada Pension Plan can be deducted under the long-term disability plan that applied to ONA members entitled to lifetime LTD benefits (a very rare commodity in today's group benefit landscape).

The case invokes the age-old Brown & Beatty analysis which has led to extensive litigation in this area because the analysis must be applied on a case-by-case basis.     In other words, the specific terms of the applicable collective bargaining agreement, as well as the disability plan must be reviewed carefully to come to the appropriate conclusion on the appropriate jurisdiction for a particular case.

In Campos, Justice Lax decided that the subject CBA and insurance plan met branch 4 of the Brown & Beatty approach, namely that the insurance policy was incorporated into the collective agreement, therefore making the claim(s) arbitrable.    She therefore dismissed the claims of the plaintiff in this summary judgment motion.

An appeal seems likely as it seems that the case turned on Justice Lax's interpretation of Article 12.07 from the CBA.   Article 12.07 of the subject CBA states:

Any dispute which may arise concerning a nurse's entitlement to short-term or long-term benefits under HOODIP may (emphasis added) be subject to grievance and arbitration under the provisions of the agreement.

It appears that the word "may" noted above has been interpreted to mean "shall" and has been invoked by the Court to slot this LTD plan into the arbitrable category.   There is no discussion as to why the negotiators of the CBA included the word "may" instead of "shall" and it is respectfully submitted that nurse members of the ONA appear to have a choice between pursuing arbitration or proceeding by way of civil action.

Perhaps the Ontario Court of Appeal will have more to say on this subject, should this case proceed to appeal.   For now, we are left to further puzzle over the appropriate analysis to apply to unionized group benefit disputes.

 

About this Archive

This page is an archive of entries from October 2009 listed from newest to oldest.

September 2009 is the previous archive.

February 2010 is the next archive.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.