1 IN THE MATTER OF THE INSURANCE ACT, R.S.O. 1990, c. I. 8, AND IN THE MATTER OF THE ARBITRATION ACT, S.O. 1991, c. 17, as amended; AND IN THE MATTER of an Arbitration between: Appearances: Scott W. Densem Counsel for the Applicant Michael Huclack Counsel for the Respondent ISSUES: CT DIRECT INSURANCE COMPANY - and - LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY DECISION Applicant Respondent 1. Was L.V. a dependent of C.P. at the time of the accident and if so, who is responsible to pay accident benefits to or on behalf of Ms. V? DECISION: 1. Ms. V. was not a dependent of Ms. P. at the time of the accident and accordingly Liberty Mutual Insurance Company is responsible for payment of accident benefits to or on behalf of Ms. V. HEARING: This arbitration was held on February 3, and March 19, Written submissions were subsequently submitted and oral arguments were made on October 1, FACTS AND ANALYSIS: This priority dispute arises of a motor vehicle accident which occurred on November 16, On that date, Ms. L.V. was a pedestrian when she was struck by a motor vehicle insured by Liberty Mutual. At the time of the accident Ms. V. was not insured by a motor vehicle liability policy, however her daughter, C.P. did have a valid motor vehicle liability policy with CT Direct. Ms. V. unfortunately suffered catastrophic injuries as a result of the collision. Ms. V. applied to CT Direct for accident benefits and pursuant to the provisions of the statutory accident benefits
2 schedule of the Insurance Act, CT Direct paid the benefits and has continued to do so. On February , CT Direct served Liberty Mutual with a Notice of Intent to Dispute Between Insurers, taking the position that Ms. V. was not a dependent of her daughter, Ms. P, at the time of the accident, therefore pursuant to section 268 (2) of the Insurance Act, the insurer of the automobile that hit her should be responsible for payment of accident benefits. Liberty Mutual argues, however, that Ms. V. was in fact a dependent of her daughter, Ms. P., and therefore pursuant to section 268 (5) of the Insurance Act, CT Direct is responsible to pay the accident benefits. As the parties were unable to agree as to which party should pay, this matter was referred to arbitration pursuant to Regulation 283/95. In order to be considered an "insured person" for the purposes of the Insurance Act and the statutory accident benefits schedule, Ms. V. must have been a dependent of her daughter at the time of the accident. Pursuant to section 2 (6) of the applicable statutory accident benefit schedule, to qualify as a dependent, L.V. must have been principally dependent for financial support or care upon C. P. at the time of the accident. Both parties have agreed that Ms. V. was not dependent upon Ms. P. for care, accordingly the only remaining issue is whether she was primarily dependent upon Ms. P. for financial support. The factors to be considered in determining dependency were originally established by the Ontario High Court and affirmed by the Ontario Court of Appeal in Miller vs. Safeco (1984) 40 O.R. (2nd) 451 (H.C.J.) (1985) O.R. (2nd) 797 (Ont. CA). They included; 1. The duration of the dependency; 2. the amount of the dependency; 3. the financial and other needs of the alleged dependent; 4. the ability of the alleged dependent to be self sufficient While these criteria were initially applied to earlier legislation, which dealt with only "dependency" and not principally dependent, the criteria have been accepted in many subsequent cases, including those involving the present legislation which uses the term "principally dependent". While counsel at the hearings spent a considerable amount of time discussing the issue of what standard of living must be considered when applying the test, I am satisfied in this particular case, the standard of living within this particular family was not extravagant, and that Ms. V. was not receiving enhancements to a lifestyle to the point where it would affect the dependency issue. This was not a case where the injured party was living a lifestyle that was extravagant to the point where it should be taken into account in determining dependency. In looking at the question of financial dependency, the case law has held that in order to be principally dependent for financial support, one must receive more than fifty percent than one's financial needs from someone other than themselves. The Ontario Court of Appeal in Liberty Mutual Insurance Company vs. Federation Insurance Company  O.J. 1234, approved the test used by the arbitrator, who stated: Jonathan can only be considered principally dependent for financial support on someone else if the cost of meeting Jonathan's needs is more than twice Jonathans' resources.
3 I am in agreement with the Court of Appeal that this is the applicable test. Having set out the law in this area, it remains to examine what the financial resources and needs of Ms. V. were at the time of the accident. Before commencing this analysis, however, I shall deal briefly with the appropriate time frame for determining the dependency issue. As will be seen from my summary of Ms. V.'s situation that follows below, Ms. V. had been in a relatively stable financial and living arrangement for a number of years prior to the accident. Accordingly I find that the applicable time frame in which to examine her financial dependency was one year prior to the accident. Ms. V. was 72 years of age at the time of the accident. She came to Canada from Russia in 1994 with her daughter C. P. and her grandson D.P. who was approximately seven years old at the time of the accident. Prior to leaving Russia, Ms. V. was a secretary/typist. She did not work outside the home after arriving in Canada. In August 1996, Ms. P. bought a townhouse at 12 R.H. Drive in North York. It was a 3-bedroom house in which Ms. V., Ms. P. and D.P. lived until the time of the accident. While Ms. V. contributed some relatively small amount to the down payment for the house, Ms. P. paid most of the down payment and the title for the house was entirely in Ms. P. s name. Prior to the accident, Ms. V. was functionally independent in the neighbourhood in which the family resided. Although she didn't have a license to drive, she walked throughout the neighbourhood to carry out normal activities of daily living and assist with the operation of the household. She travelled out of town on her own and would occasionally take the subway or a bus within the city. Subsequent to arriving in Canada, Ms. V. applied for and continued to receive social services payments that amounted to $930 per month or $11, 160 per year. In addition, she received a tax refund of $708 per year. Accordingly, her total income for the year proceeding the accident amounted to $11,868 a year, or $989 per month. Prior to the accident, Ms. V. helped out with the housekeeping, laundry, shopping, etcetera. In addition, she took care of her grandson, D.P., after he finished with day care or school and prior to his mother arriving home after work. Based on the evidence, I find that this amounted to approximately 1.5 hours per day, being from approximately from 4:30 p.m. until 6:00 p.m. each weekday or a total of 7.5 hours per week. There was considerable discussion as to whether or not a service provided within the family should be valued and considered when deciding upon a person's financial resources. I am in agreement with the general proposition, put forward by counsel for the respondent, that services provided generally within the family unit that would normally be provided free of charge ought not to be valued, and counted when considering dependency issues. However, given that the courts and arbitrators have recognized that one should value services and accommodations in dependency cases, I am of the view that when the service goes above and beyond that normally provided, it should be included in the calculation. In this particular case, Ms. V. did various things in the household, such as housekeeping, laundry, meal preparation etcetera. Ms. P. did some of this as well and also drove Ms. V. places on occasion. All this, I find, was such that it was within the norm for a family unit and ought not to be included. The babysitting, in this particular case, was beyond the norm and should be given some value. Professor Jack Carr, an economist and professor at the University of Toronto testified at the hearing on behalf of the applicant. He testified that his very limited research indicated that live-in nannies in Toronto make $300-$400 per week. He took the figure of $300 per week which amounted to $15,00 per year. He then suggested that since Ms.
4 V. was 72 at the time and had some physical limitations, doing limited work, one would take 1/3 of this or $5,000 as a reasonable amount for the services provided. I am not in total agreement with this approach. Ms. V. worked a very limited number of hours. In my view it would be more appropriate to value the babysitting on an hourly basis. Using the $10 per hour figure presented by Dr. Carr and multiplying this by 7.5 hours per week, this amounts to approximately $75 per week or $325 a month, or $3,900 per year. Accordingly, when one totals Ms. V.'s financial resources prior to the accident, she had $11,868 plus $3,900 or $15,768 per year or $1,314 per month at her disposal. EXPENDITURES: The situation is considerably more complicated when it comes to determining Ms. V.'s expenses. No less than 3 different approaches were put forward when considering this issue. I will deal with each. Ms. C. P. testified at the hearing. Ms. P. stated at the time of the accident she lived with her mother and her son David in a three-bedroom home. At the time she was a software consultant at G.E. Information Services. Her T-4 for 1998 reveals an employment income of $54, She testified that she also had a small consulting business run out of her home. In 1998, this produced gross revenue of $2,610 and a net loss after expenses of $3, Ms. P. testified that her mother had paid $700 per month towards the household finances and that the remaining $230 that Ms. V. had her disposal was spent by Ms. V. on whatever she wished, be it personal needs, presents for others, etcetera. Ms. P. testified that she contributed $3000 per month to the overall household expenses and that her mother contributed $700 per month to Ms. P., meant that the overall monthly household expenses were $3,700 or $1,233 per person, given that there were 3 persons living in the house at the time. Since Ms. V. only contributed $700 to the household expenses, Ms. P. expressed a view that Ms. V. was therefore dependent on her, as Ms. P. had contributed the $533 "shortfall" in Ms. V.'s contribution to the household expenses. I have a number of difficulties with this approach. While I will not go into detail about the household expenses Ms. P. included in her calculation, I do have some difficulty with the manner in which she allocated the expenses. For example, she ignored the fact that she ran a business out of the household. This, in my view, should be taken into account when deciding how much of the overall expenses should be allocated to each person. In addition, Ms. P. ignored the fact that Ms. V. had an additional $289 per month at her disposal. While it may not have been used for household expenses, it should be taken into account in determining Ms. V.'s financial dependency. While Ms. P. s views as to Ms. V.'s financial dependency are helpful in determining the financial situation that existed in the household, they are by no means determinative of the issue. I do note, however, that if one used Ms. P. s approach, it would result in Ms. V. being dependent upon herself, as she would have contributed at least $700 towards her overall needs and Ms. P. would have contributed only $533 towards her mother's financial situation. Mr. Jack Carr prepared a report with regard to the dependency issue and also testified at the hearing on behalf of the applicant. Professor Carr, in his report, came to the conclusion that Ms. V. was essentially self-supporting. He did this on the basis of sworn statements given by Ms. P. and Ms. V. as well as Ms. P. s income tax returns. The tax returns indicated to him that Ms. V.
5 paid her daughter $700 for room and board out of the $930 per month she received from social services. He noted that while Ms. V. provided some babysitting services to Ms. P., Mr. Carr was unaware of any significant uncompensated services provided by Ms. P. to Ms. V. In fact, at the hearing, Ms. P. testified that were numerous goods and services as she provided to Ms. V. that would not be covered by the $700 paid to Ms. P. The confusion in this regard may have been created by what might be considered, at best, confusion or inaccurate information provided by Ms. P. at her examination for discovery. At the examination for discovery Ms. P. appeared to indicate that the $700 per month covered all Ms. V.'s expenses, however, this was later clarified by Ms. P., who at the hearing indicated that the goods and services provided were far more than the $700 per month previously indicated. Professor Carr took the position that one could look at Ms. P. s income tax returns to obtain an accurate indication of the value of the accommodation being provided by Ms. P. to Ms. V. An examination of the 1998 income tax return revealed that Ms. P. claimed $5,400 income from renting accommodation at her house to her mother. This works out to $450 per month, leaving the remainder of $250 that Ms. V. contributed, to the household for food, clothing etcetera. Counsel for the respondent questioned this approach, taking the position that this was simply an accounting exercise done for the purposes of obtaining the best possible income tax result. Professor Carr noted that Ms. P. had signed the income tax return and sworn it to be true. Ms. P., in her testimony, indicated that she had used the income tax return figure on the advise of her accountant and it did not reflect the reality of the situation. While Ms. P. swore that the information was true for income tax purposes, I do not think that it is determinative of the issue. At the time that she filled out the income tax return, she may or may not have turned her mind to exactly what value the accommodation that she was providing was actually worth. The estimate is certainly of some value, however, just as with Ms. P. s estimate at the hearing, it is not determinative of the issue. A different approach to the issue was presented by Mr. John Seigel, who prepared a report and testified at the hearing on behalf of the respondent. Mr. Seigel estimated the annual financial resources of the family unit at $54,394 made up of approximately $46,000 net income from Ms. P. and $8,400 from Ms. V. Mr. Seigel then worked out the annual household expenditures. For food and shelter he used information provided to him from a statement made by Ms. P. and her 1998 income tax returns. He also took transportation and childcare expenses from Ms. P. s income tax returns. All other figures he took from Statistics Canada figures for families with a similar disposable income. His calculations are as follows: Annual Amount Food $7,200 Shelter Mortgage $15,000 Utilities $1,886 Insurance $402
6 Maintenance and repairs $2,474 Property tax $2,435 Total Shelter Expenses $22,197 Child Care Expenses $3,850 Clothing $2,927 Transportation $6,780 Health Care $1,623 Personal Care $1,161 Recreation $4,389 Reading materials and other primitive matters $328 Education $1,018 Tobacco products and alcoholic beverages $1,608 Miscellaneous $909 Games of Chance $324 Total Household Expenses $54,394 I have a number of difficulties with such an approach. The blind use of Statistics Canada figures is potentially misleading. For example, $1,018 has been allocated to education, where in fact there were little or no evidence of any such monies being spent for such an item by or for the benefit of Ms. V. Another example would be $4,389 for recreation. While I accept that in some instances Statistics Canada figured may be of some assistance, when, as in this instance, they are used for many categories, without actual supporting information, the exercise becomes far too speculative. If one were to simply take the figures that Mr. Seigel presented, the expenditures of $54,394 and divide them by 3, being the number of persons in the family, each person's cost would be $18,131.
7 By Mr. Seigel's calculation Ms. V. contributed only $8,400 and Ms. P. contributed the difference of $9, There are a number of shortcomings to this approach. To begin with, Ms. V. had revenue of $11,868 available to her, if one includes all her resources. While she may have only given $700 per month to Ms. P., Ms. V. had the additional money available to her. While she may have spent part of it on some of her own needs such as clothes, and gifts for others, there was also evidence that she had approximately $2,000 to $2,500 in the bank so she was saving some of it and it was therefore available for support. If one were to calculate Ms. V.'s resources at $11,868, then Ms. P. would only have had to contribute $6,263 which is clearly less than Ms. V.'s contribution. I also have difficulty with Mr. Siegel's approach to a number of the items. In his calculation he used the figure of $15,000 for the mortgage expense. In fact, the annual mortgage payments were $10,300 per year. This included both principal and interest. I am in agreement with Professor Carr that one should only include the amount spent on interest for the mortgage as the principal represents the equity interest in the house, something which would benefit Ms. P. The interest component alone was $8,157. I also have difficulty with the child care expense of $3,850 put forward by Mr. Seigel. The day care benefited only Ms. P. and D. and therefore should not be part of the equation. If one were to simply put in the proper mortgage figure and exclude the childcare expenses, the total household expenses would be $44,061. One third of this would be $14,687. If even if one credited Ms. V. of only resources of $8,400 this would mean Ms. P. was contributing $6,287 per year towards Ms. V., obviously less than Ms. V. was paying herself. Counsel for the respondent, in his submissions, put forward his own summary of the expenditures made from the family pool, solely for the benefit of Ms. V., as well as those made jointly. They may be summarized as follows: (a) Expenditures made solely for Ms. V.'s benefit: Monthly Yearly Clothes/shoes $83.00 $1,000 Entertainment $300 $3,600 Glasses $8 - $16 $100-$200 Dentist $83 $1,000 Television $33.75 $405 Boston Vacation $40 $500 Cigarettes $50 - $100 $600- $1,200 Total $ $ $7,205 - $7,905 (b) Joint Expenditures of which Ms. V. derived a portion of the benefit
8 Monthly Yearly House Mortgage $860 $10,320 Utilities $300 $3,600 Food $600 $7,200 Telephone $50 - $100 $600 - $1,200 Cleaning Products $150 $1,800 Property Insurance $40 $480 Property Tax $203 $2,434 Automobile $540 $6,485 Renovations $83 - $125 $1,000 - $1,500 Cutting grass $20 $240 Total $2,846 - $2,938 $34,152 - $35,252 The above figures were based on the evidence given by Ms. P. at the hearing. While I accept that Ms. P. gave her best estimates as to the expenses involved, I am not convinced that she was a totally reliable historian. The hearing occurred more than six years after the accident and accordingly it would be difficult for any witness to provide totally accurate estimates of the expenses incurred so long ago. Added to this is the evidence that Ms. P. gave at her examination for discovery on February 27, When asked about whether there were any other financial arrangements that would lead her to incur any expenses on behalf of her mother other than her mother's contribution of $700 per month, the exchange went as follows: Q.: Now, aside from the arrangement about the $700 was there any other financial arrangement between you and your mother whereby she gave you money or you gave her money or was that it? A.: I took care of all finances. She... Q.: So, you paid the bills? A: Yes. She had no idea of how much I pay or - - never, ever. This part was mine. Q.: She gave you the $700? A.: Yes
9 Q.: And you took care of the bills and those kinds of things? A.: Yes. Q.: Now, was there ever any other sum of money that your mother gave you other than the $700 aside from buying you a gift or things like that from time to time? A.: I don't think so. Q.: Did you ever have to give your mother any kind of money on a regular basis? Was that necessary or was she able to get what she needed with what she had left over after she gave you $700? A.: I don't think so because.. she would go somewhere and buy things and I would pay with a credit card, right? I mean, if she didn't have any money I would give her some money too, you know, but she... if she needed some but... no, it was never an issue. I mean if she needed some money how much would it be? Q.: As far as, for example, did the ESL course cost anything for her to go? A.: Ten dollars. Q.: Aside from whatever household expenses that were common to you, did your mother have any other expenses of her own that had to be dealt with? A.: Well, clothes I don't know. Q.: Would she ever go to the store and buy her own clothes? Was she able to go and do that with the money she had? A.: Theoretically yes. Practically, we would go together and buy things. She would go to the drug store and buy, you know little things, personal care and stuff or whatever she liked. Q.: What about the trip how was that being paid for, the trip to the Dominican that was planned, how was that going to be paid for? A.: Well, I was going to pay for it. It was money I had, like she was contributing, right? Q.: Your mother's contribution to the family situation was the $700? A.: Yes It was only subsequent to the examination for discovery that Ms. P. came up with the revised figures. In light of the above, one must approach Ms. P. s figures with a certain amount of caution. I also have some difficulty with the allocation expenses, for example the television is attributed as a one time expense which in fact will last many years and I have accordingly put $100 a year towards it. In addition, the trips would probably not occur every year, however, I will use that figure, however, using the low-end figure. Therefore, $6,905 per year was used solely for Ms. V. I also have some difficulty with the joint expenditures listed by counsel for the respondent. The mortgage figure, as stated above, should be the interest only, or $8,157. The automobile was used primarily by Ms. P. to go to and from work and to take D. to various activities. I find that only half the amount should therefore be applied to the joint use when making the calculation, or $270 per month. The utilities figure shown in Ms. P. s 1998 income tax returns was $1,886. In her tax returns she attributed $568 as a business expense. I will use the figure of $1,886 for our purposes but will make comment about the business use later in this decision.
10 With these reductions alone, and using the low-end of the estimates, given their questionable validity, one arrives at a total of $27,039. What has not been taken into account when considering these amount, however, is the fact that Ms. P. used the premises for her own business purposes and deducted part of the expenses for taxes. With the exception of food and the automobile, which I have already reduced for business purposes, each of these items should be reduced because of the business use. I am reducing that amount by 10% or $16,597 minus 10 percent or $1,659. While I accept that this is somewhat arbitrary, I note that it is less than Ms. P. claimed for it in her 1998 tax returns. Accordingly, I calculate the joint expenses as follows: Item Annual Amount Mortgage $8,157 minus 10% = $7,341 Utilities $1,866 minus 10 % = $1,697 Food $7,200 Telephone $600 minus 10 % = $540 Cleaning Products $1,800 minus 10 % = $1,620 Property Insurance $480 minus 10 % = $432 Property Tax $2,434 minus 10 % = $2,190 Auto $3,242 Renovations $1,000 minus 10 % = $900 Grass cutting $240 minus 10 % = $210 Total $25,378 If we had the expenses solely attributable to Ms. V. of $6,905 plus one third of the joint expenses of $25,378 or $8,459.33, we get a total of $15,364 as the yearly expenses attributable to Ms. V. As noted above, the financial resources above were $8,404 if you take only what she paid to Ms. P., or $11,868 if you take into account of the money available to her in If you add the value of the babysitting this would rise to $15,768. Any of these figures is more than half the total expenditures attributable to Ms. V. Accordingly, I find that Ms. V. was principally dependent upon herself for financial support. As such, she was not principally dependent upon
11 Ms. P. for financial support. That being the case, Liberty Mutual is responsible for payment of accident benefits to or on behalf of Ms. V. COSTS: If the parties are unable to agree upon the issue of costs, I may be spoken to. Dated this 3rd day of December, M. Guy Jones Arbitrator
IN THE MATTER OF THE INSURANCE ACT, R.S.O. 1990, c. I. 8, s.268, as amended, and REGULATION 283/95; AND IN THE MATTER OF THE ARBITRATION ACT, S.O. 1991, c. 17 as amended; AND IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION;
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION PURSUANT TO THE ARBITRATIONS ACT, 1991 B E T W E E N: FEDERATION INSURANCE COMPANY OF CANADA Applicant and LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY Respondent AWARD Introduction
Financial Services Commission of Ontario Commission des services financiers de l Ontario BETWEEN: BRADLEY MICHAEL MULHALL Applicant and WAWANESA MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY Insurer DECISION ON EXPENSES Before:
IN THE MATTER OF THE INSURANCE ACT, R.S.O. 1990 c. I.8, as amended AND IN THE MATTER OF THE ARBITRATION ACT, S.O. 1991, c.17, as amended BETWEEN: AND IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION WAWANESA MUTUAL INSURANCE
Financial Service Commission of Ontario Commission des services financiers de l'ontario AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF APPLICATION FOR SETTLEMENT THE MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT CLAIMS ACT R.S.O. 1990, CHAPTER M.41,
Summary of Important Changes to Your Policy You Now Have More Choice Recent reforms introduced by the Ontario government will give you more choice over the coverages and price you pay for auto insurance.
IN THE MATTER of a dispute between The Dominion of Canada General Insurance Company and Zurich Canada, pursuant to Regulation 283/95 under the Ontario Insurance Act, R.S.O. 1990, chapter I.8 as amended;
PROPERTY TAX UPDATE: CURRENT ISSUES AND DISPUTES Paper to be delivered at the Law Society of Upper Canada Six-Minute Commercial Leasing Lawyer 2007 By: Michael Steinberg February 2007 Michael S. Steinberg
FATALITY CLAIMS CALCULATION OF DAMAGES Galan T. Lund 1 P a g e FATALITY CLAIMS CALCULATION OF DAMAGES The quantification of fatality claims involves the following types of awards: 1. Damages for bereavement,
UNIDENTIFIED MOTORIST CLAIMS IN ONTARIO AN OVERVIEW Written Materials by: Elizabeth Iwata, Associate McCague Borlack LLP Presentation by: Elizabeth Iwata Unidentified motorist claims are, at times, challenging
BETWEEN: TRACY SCHUTT Applicant and ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY OF CANADA Insurer DECISION ON A PRELIMINARY ISSUE Before: Heard: Appearances: Joyce Miller Written submissions from both parties were received
INTERNATIONAL ALERT September 2010 Issue 45 ONTARIO S AUTO INSURANCE CHANGED ON SEPTEMBER 1, 2010 www.willis.com Over the last few years automobile insurance in Ontario has been a hot topic for both the
Effective Strategies for Personal Money Management The key to successful money management is developing and following a personal financial plan. Research has shown that people with a financial plan tend
BETWEEN: ANDREW ZABOROWSKI Applicant and STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY Insurer DECISION ON A PRELIMINARY ISSUE Before: Heard: By telephone conference call on January 24, 2005. Appearances:
BETWEEN: IN THE MATTER OF THE INSURANCE ACT, R.S.O. 1990, c. I. 8, Section 268 AND REGULATION 283/95 MADE UNDER THE INSURANCE ACT AND IN THE MATTER OF THE ARBITRATION ACT, S.O. 1991, c.17 AND IN THE MATTER
[TRANSLATION] Citation: P. S. v. Minister of Employment and Social Development, 2015 SSTGDIS 11 Appeal No: GT-113256 BETWEEN: P. S. Applicant and Minister of Employment and Social Development (Formerly
Taxes Read Chapter 4 in the text. Read Chapter 7 of The Financial Checkup. Read this unit including websites. You may want to take your own notes. Are taxes your favorite topic? They are not the favorite
IN THE MATTER OF the Insurance Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.i.8, as amended, and Ontario Regulation 668. AND IN THE MATTER OF the Arbitration Act, S.O. 1991, c.17 AND IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION BETWEEN: STATE
1 of 8 6/25/2008 3:39 PM BULLETIN 96-7 FREQUENT PROBLEMS FOUND IN FILINGS Property and Casualty Lines Over the years we have found that insurance companies consistently fail to make their forms and filings
ONTARIO Court File Number at (Name of Court) Court office address Form 13: Financial Statement (Support Claims) sworn/affirmed Applicant(s) Full legal name & address for service street & number, municipality,
SETTLEMENT DISCLOSURE NOTICE Final Settlement of a Statutory Accident Benefits Claim Bill 164 (For accidents between January 1, 1994 and October 31, 1996) NOTICE AND CAUTION Your insurer is required to
ONTARIO Court File Number at (Name of court) Court office address Form 13.1: Financial Statement (Property and sworn/affirmed Applicant(s) Full legal name & address for service street & number, municipality,
Department of Housing and Public Works Pathways Shared Equity Loan Become a home owner by purchasing a share of the property you are renting Questions and Answers Booklet Great state. Great opportunity.
Financial Institutions Environment and Labour A Consumer s Auto Insurance Guide 2nd edition Auto insurance is a mandatory product for all drivers in Nova Scotia. However, understanding this complex product
Financial Institutions Environment and Labour A Consumer s Auto Insurance Guide 2nd edition Auto insurance is a mandatory product for all drivers in Nova Scotia. However, understanding this complex product
IN THE MATTER OF THE INSURANCE ACT, R.S.O. 1990, c. I. 8, section 268 and REGULATION 283/95 AND IN THE MATTER OF THE ARBITRATION ACT, S.O. 1991, c. 17; AND IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION BETWEEN: MOTOR
Financial Services Commission of Ontario Commission des services financiers de l Ontario BETWEEN: ALANA BRAY Applicant and ING INSURANCE COMPANY OF CANADA Insurer DECISION ON A PRELIMINARY ISSUE Before:
Questions & Answers on Medical Assistance for Nursing Home Care In Maryland 1. What is Medical Assistance? Will the Nursing Home or the State take my house? Will we have to use my spouse s income to pay
Form 8857 (Rev. January 2014) Department of the Treasury Internal Revenue Service (99) Request for Innocent Spouse Relief Information about Form 8857 and its separate instructions is at www.irs.gov/form8857.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Date 20080222 Docket M062030 Registry Vancouver Between Sakina Jah Plaintiff And Sik L Cheung Defendant Before The Honourable Madam Justice Bennett Oral Reasons
WORKPLACE SAFETY AND INSURANCE APPEALS TRIBUNAL DECISION NO. 1842/14 BEFORE: J. P. Moore : Vice-Chair M. Christie : Member Representative of Employers M. Ferrari : Member Representative of Workers HEARING:
Accident Benefits Coverage in Ontario June 2007 Accident Benefits Coverage in Ontario Table of Contents If You Are in a Car Crash...1 Specified Benefits...3 Death and Funeral Payments...7 Medical, Rehabilitation
John and Jane Client June 2015 Table Of Contents About This Plan 2 Assumptions 3 About You 4 Your Goals & Objectives 5 Opportunities, Concerns & Notes 6 Net Worth Statement 7 Sources of Income 8 Lifestyle
Financial Services Commission of Ontario Commission des services financiers de l Ontario BETWEEN: ANDONIETTA ZAYA Applicant and STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY Insurer DECISION ON A PRELIMINARY
NOVA SCOTIA WORKERS COMPENSATION APPEALS TRIBUNAL Appellant: [X] (Worker) Participants entitled to respond to this appeal: [X] (Employer) and The Workers Compensation Board of Nova Scotia (Board) APPEAL
Financial Planning Introduction Financial Planning Learning Objectives Lesson 1 Budgeting: How to Live on Your Own and Not Move Home in a Week Prepare a budget and determine disposable income. Identify
Date of Interview: CRAWFORD SMITH & SWALLOW INC. Page 1 531 LAKE STREET, ST. CATHARINES, ONTARIO L2N 4H6 Tel: (905) 937-2100 Fax: (905) 937-7363 Website: www.crawfordss.com Email: firstname.lastname@example.org APPLICATION
THEME 3 Introduction Money Management Do you know people who handle money carelessly? Lots of seemingly smart people are clueless about where they stand financially. There is Beverly, a professional woman,
E P EWART PRICE SOLICITORS ROAD TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS - NOTES FOR CLAIMING FOR PERSONAL INJURY AND OTHER UNINSURED LOSSES If you have been involved in a Road Traffic Accident as a driver or passenger we hope
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS ON MEDICAL ASSISTANCE FOR NURSING HOME CARE Prepared by: Long Term Care Assistance Project, Maryland Legal Aid Updated January 2015 Medical Assistance is a government-funded program
Date: 20090127 Docket: IMM-2758-08 Citation: 2009 FC 80 Ottawa, Ontario, January 27, 2009 PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Kelen BETWEEN: CHUKS NWAWULOR EBONKA Applicant and THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
University Health Network Policy & Procedure Manual Administrative Expense Reimbursement Policy At University Health Network (UHN), standards and processes are in place governing reimbursement for expenses
Insurance Test - MoneyPower Multiple Choice Identify the choice that best completes the statement or answers the question. 1. For the past five years, a person has had a $20,000 whole life insurance policy
Money Management Test - MoneyPower Multiple Choice Identify the choice that best completes the statement or answers the question. 1. A person s debt ratio shows the relationship between debt and net worth.
IN THE EAST AFRICAN COURT OF JUSTICE AT ARUSHA Taxation Cause No.2 of 2012 (Originating from Appeal No. 1 of 2012) (Appellate Division) PLAXEDA RUGUMBA..APPLICANT VERSUS THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE REPUBLIC
Decision No.: 99-002 CANADA LABOUR CODE PART II OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH Review under section 146 of the Canada Labour Code, Part II, of a direction given by a safety officer Applicant: Intervenor:
Licence Appeal Tribunal Safety, Licensing Appeals and Standards Tribunals Ontario (SLASTO) Rules of Practice Revised: May 1, 2014 Disponible en français TABLE OF CONTENTS Contents Page 1. DEFINITIONS...
The How-To Manual on Resolving your IRS Debt Through an Installment Agreement Introduction First thing is first. YOU ARE NOT ALONE IN THIS. Hundreds of thousands of people owe the Internal Revenue Service
Form Workers Compensation claim form STOP - this form is available to be filled in electronically on the NT WorkSafe web site www.worksafe.nt.gov.au. Fill the form in electronically then save a copy to
General Information Frequently Asked Questions 1. Who is qualified to receive a portion of the tobacco settlement proceeds? Political subdivisions as defined in the Agreement Regarding Disposition of Settlement
The Law Society of Upper Canada October 18, 2007 ACCIDENT BENEFITS: RECENT CHANGES AND DEVELOPMENTS Richard M. Bogoroch, Melinda J. Baxter and Tripta S. Chandler Bogoroch & Associates REPRESENTING PERSONS
1. About you Your personal budget plan Your personal budget plan You need to be clear about whose details you are going to include. For example: if you live with a partner, are you going to prepare a joint
SOME MASSACHUSETTS PERSONAL AUTO POLICY ISSUES Some Mass Personal Auto Issues Michael C. D Orlando, CIC, LIA, CPIA Insurance Training & Consulting Services 11 Lake Shore Drive Amesbury, MA 01913 email@example.com
SMALL CLAIMS COURT What Is Small Claims Court? Nebraska law requires that every county court in the state have a division known as Small Claims Court (Nebraska Revised Statute 25-2801). Small Claims Court
FOR PUBLICATION ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT: JOHN O. WORTH Worth Law Office Rushville, Indiana ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE: JULIE A. NEWHOUSE Newhouse & Newhouse Rushville, Indiana RODNEY V. TAYLOR MICHAEL A. BEASON
Neutral Citation Number:  EWHC 4256 (QB) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE QUEEN S BENCH DIVISION Case No: 1HQ/13/0265 1HQ/13/0689 Royal Courts of Justice Strand, London, WC2A 2LL BEFORE: Wednesday, 2
Cycling and the Law: Know your Rights! Patrick Brown Rights of The Injured Cyclist When a cyclist is struck by a car or truck, the injuries to the cyclist can be significant. It can have a dramatic impact
INLAND REVENUE DEPARTMENT Saint Lucia Guidelines for Self-Employed Persons Our Mission The Inland Revenue Department stands committed in its impartial treatment of its customers. We aim to provide efficient,
THE ENVELOPE BUDGET The Easiest Budgeting Tool I Know By David Dopp My son, who has always had a problem keeping track of his money, had tried just about every budgeting trick he had ever read. Despite
INSERT SECTION DAILY EXPENDITURES TRACKING SHEETS EXPENSE WORKSHEET INCOME WORKSHEET U N D E R S T A N D I N G M O N E Y A N D C R E D I T R E F E R E N C E G U I D E 17 Record Of Daily Expenditures MONTH
From the Insurance Bureau of Canada (IBC) Accident: An event that happens by chance and is not expected in the normal course of events, which results in harm to people, damage to property or equipment,
There are countless drivers across the state of Arizona that are uninsured or underinsured. In fact, it is estimated that one (1) out of every five (5) drivers on the road is driving without insurance.
FCS5204 1 Adapted by Josephine Turner and Michael Gutter 2 Overview Families today are faced with a financial puzzle. In addition to stretching their income from one paycheck to the next, they face the
ACCIDENT BENEFITS COVERAGE IN ONTARIO CAR INSURANCE VISIT IBC.CA Accident Benefits Coverage in Ontario Contents If You Are in a Motor Vehicle Collision...2 Specified Benefits...4 Death and Funeral Payments...8
Submission to the Select Committee on The Landlord & Tenant Act Residential Landlord Coalition September 30, 2010 We are making this submission to the Select Committee that is undertaking the review of
Preface to Mark Turner I think it s only fair that I should start with me if I m gonna talk about other people. In this section of my website, I placed Florida Bar Complaints against the legal team that
Basics of Budgeting Reviewing: Ten Steps to creating a budget How to find where your money is going Tips to stay on course Budget format included Ten Steps To Create A Budget Basics of Budgeting A budget
budgeting Budgeting Money planning to meet your financial goals Inside... What is a budget? Making a budget Getting help What is a budget? A budget is a plan for the money you expect to receive and how
Have you or someone you know suffered a personal injury? TIPS TO MAXIMIZE COMPENSATION If you have suffered a personal injury it is important to consider all potential sources of compensation. A personal
Understanding Automobile Insurance and Rehabilitation in Ontario: Common Sense Definitions and Explanations clinical excellence human focus 15 Barrie Blvd., St. Thomas, ON N5P4B9 Ph: 519-637-0981 Fx: 519-637-6997
Document Page 1 of 7 IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA SOUTHERN DIVISION In Re: ) ) TANITA M. CAIN, ) Case No. 13-04056-TOM-7 ) Debtor. ) MEMORANDUM OPINION AND
Court Costs and Fees (A Guide to Fee Waivers) Learn what to do if you cannot afford to pay court costs and fees for Family, civil, housing, and small claims cases. If you don't have the money to pay court
Counting Your Money Section Objectives Counting your money and managing your money wisely is the most important part of your trip on the road to personal financial success. It is a critical step in achieving
CAO FL-3 PARENTING PLAN The parents (Father) and (Mother) shall spend time with their children: Name as follows: Date of Birth 1. PARENT RESPONSIBILTIES When each child is in a parent s physical custody,
GUIDE TO PERSONAL INJURY/ACCIDENT CLAIMS At Richard Grogan & Associates we have Solicitors with significant experience and expertise who will advise and guide you through all matters relating to bringing
Insurance Journal November 12, 2013 Volume 1, Issue 6 Editor Keoni Norgren Damages in Secondary Market Class Actions An Insurer Friendly Decision from the Ontario Bench In this Issue Case Comment: Stroszyn
Filed 6/29/16 In re A.S. CA1/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication
PERSONAL INJURY COMPENSATION CLAIM GUIDE PERSONAL INJURY COMPENSATION CLAIM GUIDE This booklet has been produced by D.J. Synnott Solicitors to give our clients an understanding of the personal injury compensation
RETAINER AGREEMENT Dibble & Miller, P.C. Print Client s First Name, Middle Initial and Last Name This Retainer Agreement is a binding contract between the Law Firm of Dibble & Miller, P.C. and you, the