Source: https://happyhomeinc.ca/2019/01/29/cpp-benefits-received-after-a-trial-deductible-from-auto-injury-lawsuit-awards-appeal-court-rules-canadian-underwriter/
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 04:44:50+00:00

Document:
Has your client been successfully sued after a vehicle accident in Nova Scotia? The damages may be reduced if the claimant can get disability benefits in the future through the Canada Pension Plan, a court has ruled.
Sparks v. Holland, recently released by the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal, shows disagreement among judges about how to interpret a 15-year-old amendment to provincial auto insurance law.
Section 113A of the Insurance Act applies in cases where a motorist is sued by an accident victim and the court awards damages for income loss and loss of earning capacity. That section essentially says that damages are reduced, in some cases, if the plaintiff is also getting benefits under an income-continuation benefit plan. The intent is to prevent double recovery.
That section of the act was tabled by the legislature in 2003 “to help reduce the sky-rocketing automobile insurance premiums being charged in Nova Scotia,” Judge David Farrar of the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal wrote in Sparks v. Holland, released Jan. 18.
Catherine Holland was injured in 2013 in a vehicle accident. Holland filed a lawsuit in 2016 against Josh Sparks. Holland’s injuries from the accident were serious enough that she receives Canada Pension Plan disability benefits.
Sparks and Holland disagreed on whether CPP disability benefits received by or available to the plaintiff [in this case, Holland] after a trial in a lawsuit are deductible from an award for income loss and loss of earning capacity. The question was put to Judge Gerald Moir of the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia.
Sparks argued CPP disability benefits should be deductible from the award, while Holland said they should not be.
Last June, at the lower court level, Justice Moir ruled in favour of Holland, a ruling that was overturned on appeal. Justice Moir took an “overly technical approach to syntax and tense,” Nova Scotia Court of Appeal Justice David Farrar wrote in the appeal court decision overturning the ruling.
The text of that section, “especially ‘payments… that were available before the trial,’ does not extend to benefits only available after the trial,” Justice Moir added.
MELFORT, Sask. – A Saskatchewan government report says the driver of a semi-truck should not have been on the road the day he flew through a stop sign and caused a crash with the Humboldt Broncos team bus.
The report filed during the sentencing hearing for Jaskirat Singh Sidhu notes 51 violations of federal trucking regulations on drivers’ hours and 19 violations of Saskatchewan trip inspection rules.
It includes the 11 days prior to the April 6, 2018, crash at a rural intersection that killed 16 people and injured 13 others.
“If Jaskirat Singh Sidhu had been stopped and inspected on April 6, 2018, prior to the incident he would have been placed under a 72-hour out-of-service declaration … preventing him from operating a commercial vehicle,” says the report.
The document is signed by two senior Saskatchewan government officials and is included in the RCMP’s forensic collision reconstruction report.
It expresses concerns about the distances Singh was driving as well as the amount of time he took off to rest.
The report says questions remain about what happened the day of the crash.
“We have strong concerns regarding the timelines of Jaskirat Singh Sidhu’s day on April 6, 2018, as there are unanswered questions as a result of the incomplete log on that day,” it says.
Sidhu had been driving for about a month before the crash occurred.
The owner of the Calgary-based trucking company, Sukhmander Singh of Adesh Deol Trucking, faces eight charges relating to non-compliance with federal and provincial safety regulations in the months before the crash.
They include seven charges under the federal Motor Vehicle Transport Act: two counts of failing to maintain logs for drivers’ hours, three counts of failing to monitor the compliance of a driver under safety regulations, and two counts of having more than one daily log for any day.
A dispute over what exactly constitutes a “household” in a home insurance policy has reached the Court of Appeal for Ontario.
Several members of the Weiner family were sued after a person drowned in 2010 in a vacation home on Lake Eugenia, about 70 kilometres west of Barrie.
The homeowner was Enid Weiner, who had moved to a nursing home in 2008 or 2009 and has since passed away.
The home was insured by Intact. Enid Weiner was the only named insured, but the policy provided liability coverage for relatives of the named insured while those relatives were “living in the same household” as the named insured.
Whether this means Intact is also providing liability coverage for Enid Weiner’s adult son, Scott Weiner, was a source of disagreement among judges and insurers alike.
Scott Weiner, along with his wife and daughter, were named defendants in the drowning-related lawsuit. Also named was the estate of Enid Weiner. Scott Weiner used his mother’s house as a cottage but did not live there permanently.
Scott Weiner’s own insurer, TD Insurance, settled the lawsuit. TD Insurance took Intact to court arguing Intact has a duty to defend the lawsuit.
As it stands, TD has lost its case.
“The mere fact of co-residence is not enough to constitute membership in a household,” wrote Ontario Court of Appeal Justice Bradley Miller in Ferro v. Weiner, released Jan. 28, 2019.
Initially, Ontario Superior Court of Justice Pamela Hebner ruled in favour of TD. In her ruling, released Apr. 12, 2018, she ordered Intact to pay $62,500, or half the cost of settling the lawsuit.
Justice Hebner found that Scott Weiner was in the same household as his mother. He came to the cottage when he wished and took care of it as if it were his own place.
But Justice Miller of the appellate court countered that, at the time of the accident, Enid was living in a nursing home.
“Scott lived with his family in the city and had organized his life around his urban household. Prior to entering the nursing home, Enid lived with Scott’s brother, and not with Scott and his family,” added Miller, citing several court rulings, including Wawanesa Mutual Insurance Co. v. Bell, released in 1957 by the Supreme Court of Canada.
Wawanesa v. Bell arose after Murley Miller was killed in 1955 while driving a Vauxhall car owned by his brother, John Milley. Other victims of that accident sued Miller’s estate. Murley lived at John’s home in Sarnia.
Members of a household could include domestic servants and distant relatives living there permanently, the court found in 1957.
“Although a household is not synonymous with a family, the existence of a household is evidenced by the extent to which its members share the intimacy, stability, and common purpose characteristic of a functioning family unit,” Judge Miller of the Court of Appeal for Ontario wrote in 2019 in Ferro v. Weiner.
Members of a household “typically share a residence and resources, and integrate their actions and choices on an ongoing and open-ended basis,” added Miller.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.