Source: http://mccagueborlack.com/lawyers/catherine-a-korte
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 22:51:07+00:00

Document:
Catherine has been practicing in the area of insurance defence litigation since 1995. Her current practice focuses on the defence of statutory accident benefits claims, including acting on behalf of auto insurers in loss transfer and priority disputes between insurers, and tort claims. Her practice includes a focus on privacy law. She has analyzed legislation, case law, policies, studies and current developments in privacy law. She has drafted privacy defence reference materials for clients (including federal and provincial privacy). She defends clients on cyber security breaches across Canada.
She has acted as legislative counsel on behalf of automobile insurers. On behalf of insurers she worked in approaching the Financial Services Commission of Ontario and successfully argued for the Superintendent’s approval of Insurers’ Preferred Provider Networks (PPNs).This permitted insurers across the Province of Ontario to arrange for a claimant to attend groups of insurer selected health care providers to deliver programs of care. Thereafter, as counsel for insurers she successfully worked with the Financial Services Commission to establish best practices for Preferred Provider Networks and to minimize insurers’ exposure to conflicts of interest and unfair and deceptive practice and act allegations.
Catherine is chair of our Automobile Fraud Practice group. She has represented insurers and the Ontario Bar Association in submissions to Justice Cunningham as to the changes to the Dispute Resolution Practice Code. Most recently, she has provided legislative submissions on behalf of the Ontario Bar Association to the Ministry of Finance regarding Bill 171 – Fighting Fraud and Reducing Automobile Insurance Rates Act, 2014. She is further involved on behalf of the Ontario Bar Association in legislative submissions to the Ministry of the Attorney General on proposed changes to the law of joint and several liability in the province of Ontario.
Catherine has appeared on behalf of insurer clients at the Superior Court of Justice, the Divisional Court and the Ontario Court of Appeal. She also appears regularly before the Financial Services Commission of Ontario. She is currently chair of the Government Advisory Committee to the civil law section of the Ontario Bar Association. Catherine serves as counsel to the Toronto Medico-Legal Society.
Unifund ats. Dewing, Appeal P13-00018, Aug. 28, 2013 - FSCO Appeal decision regarding production of surveillance and application of stare decisis to appeal determinations by the FSCO tribunal.
Hurst v. Aviva, CanLii 837(Ontario Court of Appeal), 2012 - Ontario Court of Appeal decision which determined that a FSCO mediation was deemed failed if the statutorily prescribed time for the same had elapsed.
Agarwal v. York Fire, 2012 – A Court determination as to whether an accident benefits and tort trial were to be tried together.
Joseph Galati v. Aviva Canada Inc., 2011 - An appeal decision of Director’s Delegate Lawrence Blackman upholding the arbitrator’s decision to dismiss the applicant’s claims for benefits.
Troncoso v. RBC, 2011 - A combined tort action and accident benefits action in which the insurer was successful in obtaining a judicial order dismissing all claims.
Mr. S. v. Aviva Canada Inc., 2010 - A competency hearing in which the insurer obtained an arbitrator’s order that the applicant was a party under disability.
Cowans v. Motors Insurance Corporation, 2010 - An arbitral decision as to whether the insured met the post-104 week test for entitlement to income replacement benefits.
Eric Boucher, by his litigation guardian v. Tomascik, 2009 - A tort action involving dismissal due to party's non-compliance.
Wendy Boucher v. Tomascik, 2009 - A tort action involving dismissal due to party's non-compliance.
Franca Miliucci and Christopher Dewald v. Milos Antic, Wafic Choucair and RBC General Insurance Company, 2008 - A tort action involving disputes regarding attendance at Courts of Justice Act Medical Assessments.
Madonik v. Aviva Canada Inc, 2008 - An appeal decision in which the insurer successfully upheld the Arbitrator's Order regarding production obligations of the applicant.
Baron v. Kingsway General Insurance Company, 2006 - The insurer successfully argued it was entitled to defence medicals in order to challenge a CAT DAC determination.
The Personal v. Kingsway General Insurance Company, 2006 - A loss transfer dispute between insurers. Kingsway successfully argued The Personal was estopped from disputing liability after its initial acceptance of loss transfer.
Maguire-Card v. RBC General Insurance, August 19, 2005 - The applicant sought income replacement benefits arising from a business plan to open her catering business. RBC was successful in establishing the business plan did not qualify as employment or an offer of employment under the SABS. The applicant was precluded from income replacement benefits.
McDougall v. Kingsway General Insurance, November 18, 2004 - McLeish Orlando as counsel for the applicant attempted to prevent the insurer from a Section 42 neurological assessment by Dr. Ranelli on the basis this assessment was post-stoppage of benefits. The Arbitrator found Kingsway was allowed to assess the applicant's neurological condition and a Section 42 assessment was ordered.
Utracki Estate v. Lombard General Insurance, October 20, 2004 - A death benefits claim in which it was alleged the deceased's motor vehicle accident injuries interfered with his chemotherapy regimen accelerating his death. Lombard successfully argued the motor vehicle accident was not a significant and material contribution to the death. The Arbitrator found the deceased passed away from the natural progression of his cancer condition.
Bertram v. CGU Insurance, April 16, 2003 - A motion was brought to prevent Centre City Health Recovery from bringing multiple proceedings arising from each disputed treatment plan. CGU successfully argued all treatment plans were added to the existing arbitration proceeding and an acknowledgement was required by the applicant's representative that they were not lawyers nor members of the Law Society.
Ayub v. Langdon, July 30, 2002 - The applicant arranged insurance on a 1988 Dodge Van in which he has no insurable interest by producing an ownership slip to a 1983 van. It was found the applicant was precluded from benefits on the basis he was operating an uninsured vehicle and had made a material representation that induced Langdon to enter a contract of insurance.
Belous v. Scottish & York Insurance, October 2002 - The applicant brought a death benefit claim alleging their father's motor vehicle accident injuries significantly and materially contributed to his subsequent death. The Arbitrator found the deceased fell because he was impaired by alcohol and his motor vehicle accident injuries did not materially or significantly contribute to his death. As a result, the applicants were precluded from death and funeral benefits.
Suliman v. Economical Mutual Insurance, December 16, 2002 - The insurer successfully argued the applicant's representative be excluded from the arbitration proceedings. The arbitrator found Messrs. DeWitt, Vaskevich and Simkhaev did not comply with their duties and responsibilities as representatives and their participation in the proceeding was incompatible with the proper administration of justice.
Singh ats. Galpreet (2000)(Ont. S.C.J.) - Jury trial, defence of a slip and fall case.
Lewicki ats. Painter (1998) O.J. No. 520 (Ontario Court of Appeal). A successful argument before the Ontario Court of Appeal quashing an appeal regarding repayments.

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