Month: January 2015

The One Factor That Can Change an IRB from Nil to the Policy Limit — And You Likely Don’t Know It’s An Issue You can read the rest of our article, which appeared in the January 2015 issue of WP Magazine, here: WP Special Edition ‘A Closer Look’ Keep your eyes on the April 2015 […]

Stay tuned, we are actively working on getting this info posted for you!

Summary Under the New SABS (O. Reg. 34/10), single people will see their Income Replacement Benefit (IRB) rise when compared to the Old SABS (O. Reg. 403/96) if their gross weekly income is lower than $330, and married people (assuming the spouse has no income) will see their IRB rise when their gross weekly income […]

Summary It appears the New SABS (O. Reg. 34/10 – from Sept 1, 2010 to current) have been drafted to bring greater clarity to the methodology of calculating the IRB, based, in part, on conclusions in arbitration decisions at the Financial Services Commission of Ontario (FSCO). The ordering of the component parts to calculate the […]

Summary The Henderson-Briehl arbitration decision became the guide for calculating pre-accident income for an individual who had both employment income and self-employment losses under the Old SABS (O. Reg. 403/96). However, the New SABS (O. Reg. 34/10) appears to revert back to the methodology which was regularly used prior to that decision.  As such, from […]

Summary  The past 14 years have seen a few tweaks to both the Eligibility Criteria and the Period of Benefits for an IRB.  The New SABS (O. Reg. 34/10) is no different. We have addressed the changes below, including the removal of the Whiplash Associated Disorder (WAD), and the changes to the Election among Income […]

Summary Even if the insured has returned to work, they may still be eligible for an Income Replacement Benefit.  Know the scope of pre-accident activities before making a decision, as the insured may still qualify under the substantial disability test.

Summary Even in the absence of evidence of malice or ill-intent, the unreasonable withholding of payments can result in a special award.

Summary Although the arbitrator found the insurer’s expert reports to be flawed in many ways, by relying on them and withholding payment of an IRB, the insurer was not found to have “unreasonably withheld or delayed payments”. As a result, there was no special award in accordance with subsection 282(10) of The Insurance Act.

Summary An insurer is required to inform their insured of potential entitlements and to act in utmost good faith.