By David Share L.L.B.
President, David Share Associates, Lawyers
A recent case, illustrates just how much money gets thrown around by insurance companies in their efforts to grab further market share. The Ontario Superior Court released its' decision in Sun Life v. Metropolitan Life, 2010 ONSC 558 (CanLII) on January 22, 2010. This case is a reminder of the type of stakes involved when one insurer acquires another. In July, 1998, The Mutual Life Assurance Company of Canada (which changed its' name to Clarica and was then purchased by Sun Life in December 2002), paid $2.2 billion dollars to Metropolitan Life for its' Canadian life insurance related businesses.
The case is about one insurer alleging that they are entitled to further reimbursement or indemnification from liabilities flowing from policies issued by Metropolitan Life prior to its' takeover by Sun Life. The concern that Sun Life has is that they do not wish to be stuck with the cost of fixing the cost structure of certain policies that Met Life had issued in the past, where their allegations of misrepresentations about the cost of these policies to the end individual policyholders.
The ins and outs of this particular case will not matter to you if your claim has been denied, be it for long term disability benefits, life insurance or critical illness, but it certainly does reinforce the notion that money really does matter to insurance companies. Does anything else matter to them? Absolutely, just nothing matters more than money.
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.
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.
The best strategy is to obtain a receipt for any expense even remotely connected to the accident. It may not be compensable but trying to get proof of spending at a later date is very difficult. Make sure receipts include a date, reason for the payment, location and of course an amount. You can write-in any missing details.
At the same time, maintain a log of all related trips whether for medical services or otherwise. Again, include the date, starting point, end location, reason, mileage each way and expenses incurred.
Some expenses require a medical assessment, evaluation or report.
Be sure you use the correct form and include a cover letter indentifying submissions made to the insurance company. Lastly, keep copies of all paperwork.
There is no guarantee that an insurance company will pay all submissions and not all expenses are eligible for repayment. However, you won't lose money on a technicality or for not having sufficient proof of an expense.
Lawyer, David Share Associates, Lawyers
Many disability claimants have heard or read about the following scenario: your disability insurer calls you on the phone, sends a representative to your home, or sends a letter proposing a lump sum payment to "buyout" either the future of your disability claim, a disputed portion of unpaid past benefits, or both. In many instances a buyout can be a desirable outcome, but a disability claimant needs to understand the ramifications of such a payment, have confidence that the proposed deal makes sense, and that the proposal is the best available option. Using experienced legal counsel can be an invaluable tool in assessing whether a buyout is the right thing to do and to ensure that the best deal possible is obtained.
One of the first considerations for an individual already receiving benefits is to determine the likelihood of the claim being terminated if the buyout proposal is rejected. Some insurers use the fear of a claim termination as a tactic to convince the claimant to accept a reduced amount. If the claim may truly be on the verge of a termination, however, there needs to be an assessment of the potential costs of a lawsuit and the likelihood of winning or losing the lawsuit. Those factors are essential in arriving at a sensible buyout figure.
Another important piece of the puzzle is to have a realistic assessment of the nature, extent and potential duration of a claimant's disability in order to make appropriate adjustments to the total future expected disability payments. In addition, a disability claimant needs a thorough understanding of the concept of the "present value" of future benefits in order to calculate the true value of the investment power of a proposed lump sum payment of future benefits.
When it comes to a buyout during litigation, the cost and risk factors for further litigation and the potential outcomes are much more prominent factors than in the claim context. In summary, buyout strategies can be complex and it is critical that a disability claimant utilize a lawyer with expertise in dealing with disability claims in order to ensure a satisfactory outcome.
Associate Lawyer, David Share Associates, Lawyers
Employment provides financial sustenance and the ability to contribute to society. For many, their employment forms part of their identity, provides a means for self-expression and fuels self-worth. There are a vast number of individuals who have spent a great deal of their working life employed with the same company. Unfortunately, their loyalty is not always rewarded and sometimes in addition to dealing with the effects of their disability, they are dealing with employment issues at the same time.
It is not uncommon for employers to threaten to terminate employees who are unable to return to work as a result of a disabling physical or psychological condition that prevents them from being able to perform their job duties. These employers send letters to disabled employees threatening to terminate their employment if they do not return to work by a certain date, setting up a "frustration of contract" argument.
At common law an employer may terminate an employee who is unable to work due to illness in certain circumstances, on the basis that the employment contract has been "frustrated". In order to succeed in such a case, the employer would need to prove that the employee's incapacity renders further performance of the employment contract impossible.
There are, however, certain cases in our courts that have held that the employment relationship cannot be frustrated if an employee is receiving long term disability benefits. The theory behind these decisions appears to be that in providing access to benefits the employer contemplated the possibility of an employee being unable to work at some point.
Our courts have also considered the manner in which a termination or employment takes place. Employers are required to treat employees with good faith and even handedness at the time of their termination. Given that employees with disabilities are often more vulnerable to experiencing psychological distress, this issue becomes particularly pertinent.
In Wallace v. United Grain Growers Ltd., [1997] 3 S.C.R. 701, a 59-year-old employee was dismissed without explanation after fourteen years as a top salesperson. The manner of his dismissal led to him suffering from depression. Courts have relied on this decision to review the employer's conduct during termination. Where employers have for instance been dishonest and misleading with an employee, made unfounded allegations against an employee, withheld money from an employee and embarrassed an employee, the courts have considered this conduct in awarding damages.
The Human Rights Code provides a measure of protection to employees from discrimination on the basis of disability. An employer is required to offer a disabled employee accommodation in the form of modified employment (to the point of hardship for the employer) that would facilitate the employee's ability to perform their job. An employee who is dismissed as a result of being unable to work due to a disability may be able to make a Human Rights complaint against the company.
Sometimes an employer terminates employment before an employee is able to make a claim for disability benefits, leaving the employee open to coverage issues should the employee attempt to make a claim for disability benefits after their employment has been terminated. Our courts have in certain situations found employers liable for providing disability benefits to employees terminated before or while they experienced a disability (see for instance: Re Stelco Inc. (2005 Ont. S.C.J.): Zorn-Smith v. Bank of Montreal (2003 Ont. S.C.J.): Prinzo v. Baycrest Centre for Geriatric Care (2002 Ont. C.A.): Keays v. Honda Inc. (2005 Ont. S.C.J.).
In certain circumstances, employers provide disabled employees with a termination letter together with a severance offer suggesting that they are complying with their legal requirements. Many employees are unaware that statutory termination and severance pay are minimum legal requirements. Employees often believe that the employment standards payout is the maximum that they can receive. However, depending on the circumstances of a case the true value may be greater than the proposed offer based on common law damages. Often employees are forced to attend meetings and sign documents in which they give up their rights to pursue employment issues.
It is important to know and understand your legal rights at all times. Consulting with a lawyer familiar with the interplay between disability and dismissal is essential to ensure that your legal rights are protected.
By Janice Grevler B.A., L.L.B.
Associate Lawyer, David Share Associates, Lawyers
In recent years, the vast majority of civil actions that are commenced are settled prior to trial. While there are opportunities for settlement throughout the course of a lawsuit, the process of mediation provides a highly beneficial opportunity for settlement discussions and, ultimately, resolution of a claim.
Mediation is a form of Alternative Dispute Resolution. In a mediation, a neutral third party - the mediator - helps to facilitate settlement discussion so that, hopefully, the parties are able to reach a resolution of the lawsuit. The mediator has no authority to impose a settlement on either side.
While previously, under the Rules of Civil Procedure, mediation was a mandatory part of litigation within the first few months of litigation, currently, mediation is only required within 90 days after an action is set down for trial (in other words, relatively late in the proceeding).
However, effective January 1, 2010, mediation will, once again, become mandatory early on in a lawsuit.
"New" actions:
According to the new Rules, mediation will be mandatory in all "new" actions (commenced on or after January 1, 2010) in Ottawa-Carleton, the County of Essex (Windsor) and Toronto. In particular, according to the new Rules, mediation must take place within 180 days (3 months) of the filing of the first Statement of Defence. The parties may extend the time for mediation on consent or by court Order following a motion.
"Old" actions:
With respect to "old" actions (those commenced before January 1, 2010), according to the new Rules, mediation must be held by June 30, 2010. Again, the parties may extend the time for mediation on consent or by court Order.
What does this mean for you?
While we have always strived to move our cases towards resolution with minimal delay, the new Rules regarding mandatory mediation will assist in moving your lawsuit forward more efficiently, and with even less delay, than may have previously been the case. For one thing, while defence counsel previously may have been reluctant to schedule a mediation in any given case, he or she will likely be more inclined to agree to scheduling a mediation given that such is deemed mandatory (with only few exceptions).
While it may be necessary to agree to a short delay in scheduling mediation in order to allow more time to prepare the case for settlement, obtain documents, or wait for a particular mediator-of-choice who may not be available for several months, we are optimistic that the new regime will assist in swifter resolutions within personal injury and disability litigation.
By David Share L.L.B.
President, David Share Associates, Lawyers
What sort of insurance product would you market to the Canadian public when you read about the aging demographic and the gap in health care services? Long Term Care Insurance may be the answer, and in theory this type of coverage seems to make a lot of sense.This type of insurance is supposed to provide protection if you need to enter a long term care facility or will require special medical care at home, for services, such as the following:
The big question, though is will it come through when you need it?
Many claims will no doubt be paid, but where there is a question about entitlement, or where a level or interpretation or analysis is required to decide on whether benefits will be paid, the ambiguity and fine print in the insurance policy or contract will come into play, and there will be claim denials.
The bottom line for Canadian consumers is to get good advice on whether such insurance makes sense for you, and in the event that you have it and your claim is denied when you most require the financial support such policies are supposed to provide is to find lawyers with the expertise to assist you and your family recover what you are entitled to.
]]>By Steven Muller LL.B, J.D, LL.M.,
Vice-President, David Share Associates, Lawyers
In a new twist to the Michael Jackson death, Jackson's aide allegedly allowed the $20 million life insurance policy to lapse. The family of Mr. Jackson are considering a legal action against the assistant who they reportedly believe kept the cash that had been put aside for insurance. Because the final payments were missed it is reported that Jackson's children, Prince Michael, Paris and Prince Michael II will now receive $2.5 million rather than $22.5 million.
Ontario law has grace periods with respect to non payment of premiums for life insurance policies. The policy may provide for a longer grace period. There is no mandatory grace period for a disability policy but non payment could trigger termination of a policy. There are strict requirements for termination that the insurer must comply with. In either case, don't end up like Jackson's family. Seek the advice of a lawyer familiar with this area. Incompetence can lead to disaster.
]]>
By Kirk Sloane B.A.(Hon), LL.B.
Lawyer, David Share Associates, Lawyers
You did the responsible thing and bought life insurance for your family. One would think that the life insurance company will do the right thing and pay when the claim is made. Not necessarily:
In the case of Heath Ledger, the trustee for his estate was forced to file an action against the insurance company for failing to pay on a $10M insurance policy purchased by Ledger. The life insurance company had been delaying payment while it investigated the possibility that Ledger committed suicide or failed to disclose certain information about his mental health when he originally applied for the policy. The action has since been settled out of court.
Most people lack the experience and foresight to know that they should document their communication or conversations with insurance agents and claims adjusters. This can create a situation where the insurer may claim that they were not advised of medical conditions which would affect the policy risk.
If you are buying insurance, be sure to detail all of your medical conditions in your application if it requires it. You should also document all correspondence, email and telephone conversations with the agent and any other person who is related to the insurance company who talks to you when you are about to purchase a policy. Detail all of the medications which you are taking or have taken in relations to your medical condition and disclose it to the agent and in the application. In the absence of a detailed record of all the information provided to the insurance company, there is a great deal of room for denial of the insurance claim.
Most trustees, executors and beneficiaries should expect that if death occurs in the first two (2) years of the policy, that the policy will be investigated for misrepresentation by the insured. If you are the insured, a beneficiary, or a trustee or executor, make a policy file and keep all records in the file, including a copy of your beneficiary designation.
In order to avoid a situation where the policy lapses for non-payment of the premium, you should set up automatic payments from your account so that the policy is in force at all times. Even if an insurance company is prepared to reinstate a lapsed policy, it will very likely have an impact on how they handle an eventual claim and whether or not there will be investigation and the potential denial of payment.
By Janice Grevler B.A., L.L.B.
Associate Lawyer, David Share Associates, Lawyers
There's no doubt that internet-based social networking has shrunk the world in which we live, and has allowed us to stay connected with others, near and far. These social utilities provide a plethora of otherwise-unavailable information to keep our "friends" (real or web-based) informed of our whereabouts, our activities and, even, our daily status.
Yet the benefits of staying "connected" can have drawbacks when the information attainable on the world-wide web is used for more than social networking and is, instead, utilized for the purposes of defending a personal injury or insurance lawsuit.
Those who have profiles on Facebook, MySpace, Twitter or other social networks, and who are involved in litigation, should be forewarned that insurance companies too have begun to employ the internet for their own benefit. We have witnessed this phenomenon over the past many months. On the basis of information obtained on social networking utilities, we have seen defence counsel argue that various Plaintiffs in personal injury or disability actions are not as disabled or injured as they have claimed. What may seem to be a harmless comment to update one's "status" on Twitter or Facebook, or to communicate with a friend on his or her Facebook wall, may ultimately be used against the author where he or she is involved in litigation. While investigations of the Plaintiff (including surveillance) have long-since been used by Defence counsel and insurance companies alike, these tactics are now incorporating searches on various social networks to look for clues about the Plaintiff's day-to-day life. At its worst, any such "clues" may be taken out of context by a Defendant who seeks to portray a seemingly harmless comment or photograph in an unfavourable light to the detriment of the Plaintiff's claim.
To eliminate or minimize the risks that a Plaintiff will encounter in the course of litigation, he or she should keep in mind the following tips related to social networking:
So, in short, what can you take from all of this? Be cognizant of the information you are sharing with anyone on-line, even where it appears that you have control over the reader. Think before you speak on social networks. Only say or reveal information that you are amenable to sharing in the course of your lawsuit. And, definitely, speak to your lawyer if you have any question about how your participation on social networking utilities can impact on your case.
]]>By David Share L.L.B.
President, David Share Associates, Lawyers
Over the past several years a large number of Critical Illness Insurance policies have been sold to Canadians either through private policies sold directly to them, or through group policies provided through employers or associations. These policies are designed to pay a one-time lump sum benefit to an individual suffering from an illness set out within the policy. The great misconception that members of the public have regarding these policies is that the benefit is paid out on the simple confirmation of the diagnosis of one of the listed illnesses.While payment may frequently be made without a significant fight with the insurer, rejection of such claims appears to be on the rise. Claim denials are based on a number of potential factors, but we are seeing denials based on two principal areas: 1) The illness diagnosed does not appear to meet the criteria as defined in the policy; and 2) An allegation regarding a negligent or fraudulent misrepresentation regarding the individual's health status at the time the policy was applied for.
If your claim for payment under a Critical Illness policy has been declined, you should contact a lawyer to discuss the possibility of challenging these decisions. Our firm has years of experience in dealing with disputed insurance claims. Familiarity with policy wording and underwriting requirements is crucial if you are to have any chance of success in disputing a claim rejection.
]]>Associate Lawyer, David Share Associates, Lawyers
An expression of contrition and remorse, an apology can go a long way to healing the emotional wounds that fester in the face of wrongdoing. While an apology cannot undo harm that has been caused, it is a way of showing respect and it is an acknowledgement that another individual has emotions that deserve consideration. Children are taught from a very young age to apologize for wrongdoing and to acknowledge the effects of their negative actions on others.
Unfortunately, the proliferation of litigation in recent times has resulted in an adult society that has shunned the simple apology in fear that it will result in an admission of liability or recrimination. Individuals and corporations are often advised by legal counsel to avoid issuing an apology in cases of alleged wrongdoing.
Doctors and Hospitals for instance, are often cautioned against apologizing for medical errors in order to avoid litigation. They will go to the extent of avoiding all communication with patients in regard to a medical error in order to avoid the possibility that anything said in explanation of what occurred could surface in a law suit.
Ironically, the failure to apologize is sometimes what spurs litigation. Some victims of medical errors commence litigation to seek the answers that they have not received because the doctors and hospitals have been instructed not to communicate with them.
Other litigants are motivated by a desire that there is recognition of the wrongdoing or to ensure that the mistake does not reoccur. It is highly probable that many of these types of litigants may not have commenced litigation had they received an apology.
South Africa embraced the concept of "apology" with the adoption of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission in the 1990's. The Commission was created shortly after the abolition of Apartheid and conducted hearings in which victims of violence and human rights abuses could come forward and tell their stories. Perpetrators of the violence and human rights abuses were also encouraged to come forward, admit to their wrongdoings and offer apologies for their actions.
The Commission was vested with jurisdiction to grant amnesty to perpetrators if the crimes committed were politically motivated, proportionate, and there was full and complete disclosure. Approximately 15% of the perpetrators were granted indemnity from criminal and civil prosecution. In 1998 the Commission presented a report which detailed and condemned the abuses that had been committed.
Although the outcome and efficacy of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission has been debated by many, the fact that Democracy was attained in South Africa post Apartheid without civil war is likely in part testimony to the value of acknowledging wrongdoing and rendering an apology.
After an outbreak of Listeriosis the food-borne illness, caused by the bacterium Listeria monocytogenes, Maple Leaf Foods conducted a very public campaign in Canada. The company CEO held press conferences, ran advertisements on television and in newspapers and posted an apology on the company web site. Instead of being condemned for opening itself to potential lawsuits, the company has been lauded for its effective communication with the public.
On April 15, 2009 a bill (The Apology Act) was introduced in the Ontario Legislature that provides that an apology made would not be admissible in a civil proceeding and would not constitute an admission of liability.
It is not uncommon in our practice to encounter clients who are extremely distressed by the fact that the person or company who caused their injury has never apologized to them or acknowledged their wrongdoing. They will express the fact that they are unable to heal emotionally because of the anger they feel towards those that have caused their injuries. In advocating for our clients, we endeavour to imbue litigation with the human element and attempt to persuade those that we are litigating against that they are dealing with individuals whose emotions are deserving of consideration and respect.
If this legislation is passed, it will be a positive step in recognizing that the victims of wrongdoing are not motivated solely by compensation but are often motivated by the genuine human need for compassion, understanding and the recognition of wrongdoing when it has occurred.
Most people in Canada, even those who have worked for several decades, are unaware of the full benefits of CPP. Just about everyone knows that there is a retirement pension available once you reach your 60s. But those premiums you complain about every paycheque also support a disability fund.
If you become medically disabled to continue working, you should apply. The test for entitlement in the legislation is considered very tough but many people do qualify. Contrary to some misconceptions, including those held by many doctors, you do not have to be dying or confined to bed.
You do need to apply as soon as possible as CPP will only back-pay a certain time period if you are found to be eligible. The forms are not difficult but there are several including a medical report. You can submit more than one medical form from different specialists or from your family doctor and a specialist. Be sure to keep copies of all papers submitted.
You are supposed to receive an acknowledgement that your application was received. If you do not, or if more than three months has passed since you have had any communication, call to check on the status of your file. A final decision usually can take six months to process.
If you are rejected on the first application, submit a request for reconsideration. The correspondence received from CPP explains the process in detail. You have to send a note asking for the reconsideration, and can add anything you wish. The important information is a "targeted letter" from your doctor(s). This is a note refuting the reason for the refusal by CPP, advising why the decision is wrong from a medical viewpoint.
There is no need to restate the history. And we know that the information may be available within the reports and records already submitted to CPP. However, it is necessary to put the specific details up front to them.
Statistically the further you proceed into the appeals, the higher the percentage of acceptances.
If you are accepted, the benefits are payable to age 65, unless you recover your health. At age 65 years, the benefit will revert to the retirement benefit calculated on the basis of your contributions. Having received CPP disability does not affect the amount.
]]>David Share Associates, Lawyers
One of the most challenging aspects of representing people in their disability disputes is figuring out whether we can help them in the first place. For most people, all they know is that they are supposed to have these benefits that pay them if they are unable to work, and the rest is merely window dressing. All well and good, but the path to finding a remedy when the benefits are denied is anything but simple.
Is your workplace governed by a Collective Bargaining Agreement? Are the benefits paid by an insurer in their capacity as a manager of the benefit plan? When an insurer enters into a contract to manage disability benefits payments for an employer who is financially responsible to pay the benefits? This contract is usually called an "Administrative Services Only" agreement, or A.S.O.
Why is this important? Because, the answers to these questions will determine whether a dispute regarding disability benefits belongs in the courts or must go through the labour relations system.
Disputes that properly arise under a collective bargaining agreement must ultimately be disposed of by way of Arbitration as contemplated by the particular collective bargaining agreement. Where that is the case, the disabled employee will usually have to seek representation through their union, who will provide a lawyer if required.
As there are numerous unions operating in Ontario, with multiple locals and resulting different benefit plans depending on the particular employer, answering these questions can be a daunting task.
In these cases, it is imperative for you to determine the correct path as soon as possible so that you do not harm your chances of successfully pursuing your claim due to the running of time. Consult a lawyer as soon as possible if your benefits have been denied, as time if of the essence and the sooner these questions are raised, the sooner you can determine whether you are the correct path to resolving your dispute.