Last week I had the pleasure of golfing in the Brain Injury Association of Nova Scotia’s 18th annual 18 Holes for Hope Golf tournament.
Brain Injury Awareness Month
The tournament is one of BIANS’s major fundraisers and I was happy to be part of the organizing committee.The tournament is held in June every year as part of Brain Injury Awareness month.
Last week the Alberta Court of Appeal released its decision in Morrow v. Zhang.
Alberta introduced legislation placing a “cap” of $4000.00 on the compensation that persons who suffered a “minor injury” were entitled to receive. The plaintiff’s Morrow and Pedersen appealed the cap claiming that it infringed their rights under Section 15(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
The trial judge ruled that, were it not for the “minor injury” cap, the plaintiffs would have been entitled to non-pecuniary damages in excess of the $4,000.00 cap. The trial judge also found that the distinction in the legislation between people that had suffered a minor injury and other injured victims resulted in substantive inequality resulting in an unequal distribution on financial benefits.
Okay, lawyers have a bad reputation.
In most public opinion polls we rank just above used car salesman and below politicians when it comes to trust.
I am proud to be a lawyer. I think being able to help people when they are most in need is one of the most important jobs in the world.
I came across an interesting case the other day which should worry anyone who is interested in privacy rights.
Leduc v. Roman is a case out of Ontario. The plaintiff, Leduc filed a claim for compensation for injuries he claim to have suffered in a car accident.
The defendant, Roman, made an application to court for an order to produce the contents of Leduc’s Facebook page! Leduc claimed that, because he only allowed access to his Facebook page to his Facebook “friends”, the contents of his Facebook site were private and confidential.
One of the challenges that I face as a Nova Scotia personal injury lawyer is explaining to people who have been seriously injured how much compensation they are entitled to receive.
Pain and Suffering
One of the heads of damages that the court will consider when awarding compensation is what lawyers refer to as “non-pecuniary damages”. Most people refer to this type of damages as “pain and suffering”.
Justice Walter Goodfellow has released the second part of his decision in Hartling v. Nova Scotia (Attorney General).
“Minor Injury” Cap Isn’t Unconstitutional
As I explained in a previous post last month: “Minor Injury” Compensation Cap Constitutional, Justice Goodfellow determined that Nova Scotia’s legislation that places a cap of $2,500.00 on the compensation that innocent accident victims can receive for their pain and suffering does not violate the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Nova Scotia Limits Compensation For Injured Car Accident Victims
As I have explained in previous posts, Nova Scotia has legislation that places caps on the amount of compensation that persons injured in car accidents are entitled to receive for their injuries.
“Minor Injury” Cap Constitutional
For years insurance companies and their lawyers have been telling chronic pain victims: “…it’s all in your head!”
Defendants Claim Chronic Pain Isn’t Real
Insurance companies hire psychiatrists to produce reports claiming that the chronic pain victim’s pain is the result of a psychiatric illness, accuse the victim of malingering or come up with a bogus diagnosis like compensation neurosis.
Insurance companies use “dirty tricks” and “unethical behavior” to deny legitimate claims and boost their profits, according to a new report released by the American Association for Justice.
The report explains how insurers have:
…endeavored to deny claims, delay payments, confuse consumers with incomprehensible insurance-speak, and retroactively refuse anyone who may cost them money.
“Minor Injury” claims from Nova Scotia Car Accidents
I get the calls all the time: The client had a car accident in Nova Scotia. It wasn’t their fault. They have been injured. They have not been able to work for months. But the other driver’s insurance company says they have a “Minor Injury”. The insurance company says the client is only entitled to $2500.00 for their pain and suffering.
So they call me and ask: “That can’t be right, is it? That’s just not fair!”
