![]() Mike Smitiuch of Smitiuch Injury Law PC also has concerns. Any gigantic shift in the system leaves us looking for precedents for years.” Taken as a whole, there are no huge changes in the report’s recommendations as long as they use the same arbitrators. The system has morphed into a highly adversarial system. “The number of matters that the licensing appeal board deals with pales in comparison to the numbers that FSCO deals with, and the statutory accident beneficiary articles are almost as complicated as the provincial tax code. The lack of detail worries the likes of Mark MacNeill of Brauti Thorning Zibarras LLP given that FSCO deals with more than 10,000 applications per year and has a backlog of more than 15,000 arbitration cases. When asked if the staff or just the files would be part of the transfer, Blodgett says that if the legislature passes bill 171, a transition strategy will ensure an efficient move between the existing system at FSCO and the new one at the Licence Appeal Tribunal. review can be implemented,” says Scott Blodgett. The tribunal’s “jurisdiction complements the purposes of bill 171 providing an independent body in which the recommendations of the. A spokesman for the Ministry of Finance notes the Licence Appeal Tribunal’s capacity to administer the new automobile insurance dispute resolution system due to its nature as an established body with professional adjudicators and rules and procedures that align with many of the recommendations of Cunningham’s review. In 2013, the government clustered the Licence Appeal Tribunal with four other adjudicative bodies as part of the Safety, Licensing Appeals, and Standards Tribunals Ontario. He recommended examining them for suitability in relation to the dispute resolution system but emphasized the need to recognize the existing expertise and experience at FSCO. Cunningham noted that, in the last few years, the provincial government had transferred clusters of tribunals to the Ministry of the Attorney General to promote efficiencies and access to justice. ![]() The approach would address the conflict of interest between the regulatory and adjudicative duties of FSCO. In fact, Cunningham flagged the idea of incorporating insurance disputes into an existing tribunal so that the dispute resolution staff would no longer report to the superintendent but to a responsible minister. If you look at what the Licence Appeal Tribunal does now, they are not equipped to deal with the caseload generated by the auto insurance system.” We hoped that the same arbitrators would still be doing cases out of a different office, perhaps called dispute resolution services. Cunningham to leave the dispute resolution system in the hands of government. “Be careful what you wish for,” warns Charles Gluckstein, President of the Ontario Trial Lawyers Association. Its most recent statistics show that from April 1, 2012, to March 31, 2013, it opened 673 appeals regarding liquor licences, motor vehicle impoundment, Ontario new home warranties, medical suspensions of driver’s licences, and appeals under the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act. The Licence Appeal Tribunal deals with compensation claims and licensing activities regulated by several provincial ministries. Section 280 of the fighting fraud and reducing automobile insurance rates act provides that in the future, a tribunal with a relatively small caseload and part-time staff will deal with disputes. While many observers found the report fair and balanced and most of the recommendations palatable, critics describe the tabling of bill 171, which identifies the Licence Appeal Tribunal as the new location for the dispute resolution section of the Financial Services Commission of Ontario, as “out of left field” and “mind-boggling.” While the final report on the auto insurance dispute resolution system authored by former justice Douglas Cunningham arrived in February with barely a ripple, the legislation tabled to implement it has caught the insurance bar and industry by surprise.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |