Jason was the recipient of the 2017 Richard B. Lindsay QC Exceptional Young Lawyer Award by Canadian Defence Lawyers for exceptional contributions to the legal profession in Canada.
Jason regularly teaches, trains and collaborates with clients, industry participants and fellow lawyers on changes to the SABS, implementation of the LAT and developing caselaw.
He focuses his practice on insurance defence litigation. He has motion, arbitration, trial and appeal experience at the LAT, FSCO, WSIAT, Superior Court and Court of Appeal. Several of his published decisions have changed prevailing approaches to priority and loss transfer disputes in Ontario.
Jason has particular expertise with accident benefits claims, loss transfer arbitrations, priority arbitrations and WSIAT applications. He also specializes in examinations under oath, investigating and prosecuting claims fraud, as well as managing accident benefits litigation risk.
Jason is married, has two young boys and knows the glass is half full.
Partner, Schultz Frost LLP, Toronto (September 2015 - present)
Specialization in civil litigation, focusing on the defence of Statutory Accident Benefits disputes, including first party claims for benefits, private arbitrations of priority and loss transfer disputes, the interaction between the SABS and WSIB, anti-fraud for AB, as well as tort defence.
Associate, Hughes Amys LLP, Toronto (April 2010 - August 2015)
Associate, Brown & Korte Barristers, Toronto (August 2008 - March 2010)
Student-At-Law, McTague Law Firm LLP, Windsor (August 2007 - June 2008)
Year of call: 2008
Written Advocacy Course, Osgoode Hall (2011)
Ontario Bar Admissions Course, LSUC (2007)
Bachelor of Laws LL.B., University of Windsor (2007)
Bachelor of Arts B.A., (Hons), University of Western Ontario (2003)
CDL Richard B. Lindsay QC Exceptional Young Lawyer Award (2017)
Most Outstanding Junior Officer, H.M.C.S. Hunter (2008)
Max Mousseau Award in Municipal Law (2007)
Canadian Defence Lawyers, Law Society of Ontario and Ontario Bar Association
Let your hair down in Movember
Movember is in full swing at Schultz Frost LLP, with the “men of” showing some serious dirt on their upper lip.
Like the Movember Foundation, we believe in taking action! Facial hair is in full growth mode and fundraising is in full swing with team members at Schultz Frost LLP participating in individual and team sites.
For the final donation drive, staff bid to "shave a stache" on December 1. Needless to say (see video below) it was great finale to a successful drive.
The Movember Foundation is a global charity committed to men living happier, healthier, longer lives. Since 2003, millions have joined the men’s health movement, raising $677 million and funding over 1,000 programs focusing on prostate cancer, testicular cancer, poor mental health and physical inactivity.
“We’re creating positive change for men’s health by raising awareness and educating men year-round, and through our take-over of the month formerly known as November.”
Join us in supporting this vital charity. Grow a “stache” to raise awareness – and live a little healthier.
|The Impact of Concussions on Children and Adolescents||2019-02-05||Toronto|
Over the last few years, increased focus on the effects of concussion and brain injury have led to new assessment technologies as well as improved treatment and management approaches.
Join us to hear Canada’s leading experts in this developing field for a discussion of today’s art, science and law.
Co-chaired by Kadey Schultz, Schultz Frost LLP and Dr. David Corey, Brain Scan Inc.
Featuring Dr. Nick Reed, Head of Concussion Program, Holland Bloorview Kids Rehabilitation Hospital
“Concussion and Neuroimaging: Making the Invisible – Visible”
Dr. Alain Ptito, Senior Neuroscientist, McGill University
“Managing Concussion from a Legal Perspective”
Alison Burrison, Burrison Law
150 King Street West, 27th Floor
5:00 to 8:00 pm
|CDL Boot Camp - Accident Benefits 101||2017-09-07||Toronto|
At the annual CDL Boot Camp for new defence lawyers, Jason will present Accident Benefits 101:
A concise overview of the SABS, strategies for dealing with the MIG, “incurred”, and whether the incident is an “accident”. We’ll remind ourselves of FSCO Bulletin A-02/11, talk about EUOs and provide an introduction to priority disputes, loss transfer, and WSIB issues. We’ll also consider the 2016 SABS and LAT changes and much more.
20 Toronto Street Conference Centre, Toronto
9:00 am to 4:30 pm
|Section 33 of the SABS: Where the Wild Things Are||2017-02-24||Toronto|
Jason Frost of Schultz Frost LLP and Albert Conforzi of Pace Law Firm lead a lively debate on the state of s. 33 of the SABS.
• Recent law on notice provisions
• What’s a sufficient reason to conduct an EUO and what’s the remedy if you don’t?
• The implications of not attending a properly scheduled EUO
• Sufficiency and scope of the statutory declaration: what’s reasonable?
• Production of ‘information’ vs. production of ‘documents’
Location: Osgoode Professional Development, 1 Dundas St. West, 26th Floor, Toronto ON
Registration: 8:30 am
Seminar: 1:15 pm – 2:00 pm
|Osgoode PD: Accident Benefits 2016||2016-02-19||Toronto, ON|
Jason joins Paul Harte and David Lackman in an expert panel discussing ethical and professional issues in an AB practice.
|Ontario Bar Association Seminar 'Motor Vehicle Accident Litigation: Critical Updates'||2015-11-05||Toronto, ON|
Note: This Blog was prepared by Robbie Brar, articlng student at Schultz Frost LLP
On January 25, 2019, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice released its decision in Seetaram v. Allstate Insurance Company of Canada, 2019 ONSC 683. In his decision, Justice Glustein ruled that the applicant’s policy of automobile insurance was void due to their failure to advise the insurer of a change in risk:
“Had Avinash been disclosed to Allstate as a licensed driver living in his parents’ household when the Policy was renewed on April 17, 2013, Allstate would not have agreed to insure the Applicants at the stated premium of $2,112. Instead, the annual premium would have almost doubled to $3,954, since Avinash was in a high-risk insurance category as a 17 year old male with a G2 license.”
Most notably, Justice Glustein found that the insurer did not have a duty to explain to the insured what constitutes a material change in risk, responding to the fact that the Applicants had interpreted the policy’s “full coverage” description to include all licensed drivers within the household.
This decision can be contrasted with an earlier decision in DeKoning v. Vector Insurance Network (Ontario) Limited, 2009 CanLII 43644 (ONSC), where the named insured did not fail in her duty to disclose a material change in the risk by adding an under-25 novice male driver in a high-risk insurance category to the policy.
The DeKoning case raised two issues: the duty of an insured to report to the insurer of a high-risk category driver who is listed on the Policy, and whether, and to what extent, the insurer is obligated in law to inquire into matters it regards as material to the risk prior to a renewal of coverage.
The insurer had elected to accept risk for newly appointed G2 driver for the following year, despite being well aware that the driver was added by it to the coverage in the year prior, while in G1 standing. Upon renewal, the insurer asked no question about his driving record, nor did it obtain low-cost information (Motor Vehicle Record) after he had been legally driving unaccompanied for the first time.
In DeKoning, the Court also found that, in the absence of inquiry by the insurer of the driving record of the added driver, and knowing that they are within a high-risk category, the driving record (MVR) was not material to the decision of the insurer to enter the contract of insurance by way of renewal. Accordingly, since the insurer saw no materiality to accepting the risk prior to renewing the applicant’s policy, the insured was not obligated to voluntarily disclose the material change in risk to the insurer.
The Court in Seetaram concluded that both s. 233(1)(a)(ii) of the Insurance Act and the Statutory Conditions were breached when the Applicant failed to disclose upon the renewal of the Policy that a 17-year-old, G2-licensed driver was living in the insured’s household.
Seetaram affirms an insured's positive obligation to notify the insurer of any change that a reasonable insurer would consider relevant to assess the risk.
In Abyan and Sovereign (FSCO Appeal P17-00068, October 5, 2018), Delegate Evans quashed the Arbitrator's decision and remitted Mr. Abyan's non-MIG claims back to arbitration (likely with a different FSCO Arbitrator as ADR Chambers' contract with FSCO has ended and the original hearing arbitrator is no longer with ADR Chambers).
The constitutional assessment of the MIG was completed in a "factual vacuum". Before concluding that it was discriminatory to limit those suffering from chronic pain to the MIG limit of $3,500, the Arbitrator should have determined whether the claimant suffered from chronic pain and whether the chronic pain was related sequelae to predominantly minor soft tissue injuries.
In Zheng, Cai v. Aviva Insurance Company of Canada, 2018 ONSC 5707, the Divisional Court reverses the unsettling position of FSCO and the LAT that s. 38(8) non-compliance results in the entire claim being taken out of the MIG.
In the recent FSCO decision of Aydemir and Aviva (FSCO A14-003170), Jason Frost successfully obtained a dismissal of claims for Catastrophic Impairment, Non-Earner Benefits, 24 hour Attendant Care and related Treatment Plans.
The related legislation has yet to be implemented, but the Ontario Government's Press Release suggests:
- many assessments for non-serious claims will be eliminated;
- new 'standard treatment protocols' will be introduced for "one size fits all' treatment for certain impairments or combinations of impairments;
- cash payouts or settlements are going to be restricted or eliminated; and
- fraudulent claims and systemic fraud will be more aggressively prosecuted by a new "Serious Fraud Office".
In an eagerly anticipated Superior Court decision, Justice Belobaba dismissed a personal injury lawyer’s constitutional challenge to sections 267.5(1) and 280 of the Insurance Act.
This Priority Arbitration decision confirms student loans and lines of credit are a neutral factor when assessing financial dependency.