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 Duty to Defend Under A Homeowner’s Policy for Automobile-Related Incidents: SCC Confirms Analysis of Pleadings and Narrow Reading of Exclusions Apply
In Arconti v. Smith, Justice Myers confirms an Examination For Discovery will be completed via videoconference, instead of waiting for physical distancing requirements to be relaxed.
Justice Perell, in a recent Superior Court decision on a Rule 21 motion, confirmed that insurance adjusters do not owe a duty of good faith to an insured that is independent of any duty owed by the insurer. As such, adjusters of insurance companies, when acting strictly in their capacity as employees, cannot be held personally liable for breaching a duty of good faith. They can only be held liable in tort as individuals if their actions are themselves tortious and exhibit a separate identity or interest from the insurer.
Adjudicator Robert Watt, in his recent Reconsideration Decision of December 18, 2019, upheld a prior LAT decision denying an applicant’s claim that his injuries arising from a motor vehicle accident fell outside of the Minor Injury Guideline.
In doing so, Adjudicator Watt maintained what has long been accepted by both FSCO and the LAT alike: a diagnosis of chronic pain will not in and of itself automatically remove an insured/applicant from the MIG.
The Court of Appeal set aside a LAT decision upheld on Reconsideration as well as in the Divisional Court in a decision released November 8, 2019 - in doing so, they ruled that an insured person may argue that they did not "discover" the right to make a claim (due to a MIG or CAT finding, for example) and therefore the limitation period did not run.
A recent decision by Arbitrator Ken Bialkowski challenges the accepted practice of claimaint independent adjuster fees following a successful priority dispute transfer of an accident benefits claim. Absent unusual circumstances, IA fees are seen as the "cost of doing business" and not unjust enrichment.
Do you have a smart TV? A smart watch? Maybe a baby monitor? Or how about those fancy smart home cameras and thermometers? Well then… you have an IoT device. They are wireless devices that connect to a network and are capable of transmitting data. They can also communicate and interact over the internet and can be remotely controlled and monitored.
As IoT devices are becoming more widespread and readily accessible, so is the threat to our data.
In a recent decision, ADR Mongeon wrestles with the curious case of income never received.
In a new FSCO arbitration, the new statutory definition of “Self-Employed Person” gets boiled down to a subjective test.
In Carr and TD, Director Delegate Feldman covers the field of what constitutes an accident.
In R.H. and TD Insurance Meloche Monnex, 2017 CanLII 1555 (ON LAT), the LAT moves in lock step with previous FSCO and LAT decisions with regards to the harsh remedies for technical violation of section 38.
The Interplay between FSCO and LAT Treatment of Mediation, Limitation Period Exception - Mussa and Aviva Canada, FSCO A16-004253
Son’s claim he was deprived of his mother’s care, guidance and companionship from insurer’s mismanaging of mother’s claim “not plain and obvious” to fail
Two fresh decisions give teeth to section 55 and the procedural fairness considerations of that section.
CERTAS (Stuckless) v. ACE INA, Arbitrator Bialkowski, December 22, 2016