This year has been really difficult, particularly in the 2nd half of the season, to watch the Toronto Raptors play basketball. They are poorly managed, poorly coached, with pieces which are overpaid which and which don’t fit properly on a basketball court. The product is not entertaining, and the future of the team isn’t looking very bright when you consider the long term investments they’ve made into certain key players.

Running an insurance company, or a personal injury law firm requires someone at the top to make shrewd business and management decisions. The same can be said for running the Toronto Raptors.

The performance of the employees at an insurance company, or at a personal injury law firm is largely outside of management’s hands. Either those employees perform to a high standard which has been set by management, or they don’t. Management will set up targets, procedures, protocols and quality control inspections; but it’s not their job to do the work which the employees are being paid to do. Good management will put their employees in positions to succeed, with the tools they need to succeed. Bad management will do the opposite.

The same can be said of management of the Toronto Raptors. It’s not Bobby Webster’s job (current general manager of the Toronto Raptors) to make jump shots or play defence. Rather, it’s his job to build a roster, coaching staff, and operations team; and then for targets, goals and standards to be set which are either met/followed; or not.

Insurance companies and successful personal injury law firms are required to make calculated business decisions each day on how to spend capital in order to help their business move forward and to grow. Some decisions are made more frequently than others. It’s the cumulation of these decisions and how they impact the business which can make or break a profitable year vs. a non-profitable year.

The biggest capital expenditure for the Toronto Raptors are their players. The players are the workforce which the public sees of an NBA team. This is no different than any other business. The salaries, benefits and welfare of staff/employees is always a large capital expenditure. This is why so many businesses are trying to integrate AI. Not only can it increase productivity, but the AI can replace their human workforce. The AI will be cheaper; you don’t have to pay AI overtime or vacation wages; there are no lunchbreaks for AI; there are no sick days for AI; AI doesn’t need medical or health benefits; and if all goes well, you won’t need an HR department or managers to supervise AI. The machines are far less expensive, and far more productive than the human labour force.

The Toronto Raptors cannot do this for their players. They cannot replace their players with AI to take to the Court and to play basketball. Their labour force is expensive and so is running an NBA team.  Stephen Curry alone is the NBA’s highest-paid player by playing salary, earning $59,606,817. 

This means that the Toronto Raptors have to be very careful with the contracts they enter into with their players. A few bad contracts ruins the overall competitiveness of the team.

Here are examples of some terrible contracts which the Toronto Raptors have signed with their players which have ruined the competitiveness of the team:

1. Neeamia Queta is currently signed to a three-year, $7.18 million contract with the Boston Celtics that runs through the 2026-27 season
2. Luke Kornet is currently under a four-year, $40.7 million contract with the San Antonio Spurs. He signed this deal as a free agent in the summer of 2025, ending his multi-year tenure with the Boston Celtics
3. Luka Garza is currently signed to a two-year, $5.5 million contract with the Boston Celtics that runs through the 2026-27 season

The person is simply in the wrong place, at the wrong time; and as a result, they’ve been involved in a serious accident and sustained very serious injuries.

Sometimes these people are the in the wrong place, at the wrong time, but on multiple occasions. So, instead of being involved in one accident, they are involved in two, or three accidents.

It doesn’t just have to a car, bike or motorcycle accident. It could be a lot of things. One car accident; one bike accident; one slip and fall accident; one dog bite. It doesn’t matter because the impact to the Plaintiff is all the same. It just adds to their damages, injuries, pain, suffering and their ability to carry out a normal life. Just when you thought you were on your way back to making a recovery, or returning to work, the second, or third, or even fourth accident completely derails all of the hard work you’ve put in to your rehabilitation. This experience can be incredibly frustrating and depressing.

Things don’t get better when insurance lawyers look at the situation. In fact, many insurance lawyers like to hear that there are multiple accidents.

Why is that? Are they actively rooting for the person to get into an accident because they find enjoyment in the pain and suffering for another human being? Absolutely not.

Insurance defence lawyers and insurance adjusters aren’t bad people per se. They are simply looking out for the best interest of their respective clients. The best interest of their clients are, more often than not; the opposite interests which an innocent accident victim has in mind.

The Plaintiff accident victim wants to maximize the value of the claim; and to recover as much money (or benefits) as they can out of the case.

The Defence side has the opposite in mind. They wish to pay as little as possible (or nothing if they can) in order to defend the claim; or to make it go away in its entirety.

So, one of the Defendant’s strategies is to ask a Plaintiff whether or not s/he has been involved in any subsequent accidents AFTER the accident giving rise the the subject claim.

There are some very good reasons for this.

For starters, the Defendant can determine whether or not the Plaintiff’s injuries were directly caused by the first accident, or by the subsequent accident. If the injuries were caused by accident #2; then the insurer’s risk and exposure is reduced significantly.

The defendant insurer will also love know whether or not accident #2 was a car accident or not. Car accidents, or accidents arising from the use or operation of a motor vehicle can be very problematic for a Plaintiff because of the statutory deductibles.

Think of the statutory deductible as a secret credit which the defendant insurance company and the at fault driver gets to apply against the claim. It’s there to protect them and to save them money. That’s it. There are limited protections for an innocent accident victim. But, there are layers and layers of protections for the at fault driver. It’s not fair, but Ontario’s car insurance system was never created to be fair in the first place.

In 2026, the deductible (or secret credit) currently stands at $47,913.01. This applies for any award on general damages under $159,708.71. So, if the general damages are assessed at $100,000; the award to the Plaintiff would be reduced by $47,913.01; leaving the Plaintiff with only $52,086.99.

If there are 2 car accidents, with similar or exacerbated injuries; then the Plaintiff has to deal with 2 deductibles. Those deductibles quickly add up much faster than the general damages stack up. A Plaintiff would be facing $95,826.02 in deductibles which is a lot of money. With two accidents, the case starts a hole of just under six figures before it even gets off of the ground. These are hard concepts for innocent accident victims to handle. They aren’t fair, and reflect a system which has been developed to protect defendants, instead of fairly compensating Plaintiffs for their injuries. It has never sat right with me that someone who has done absolutely nothing wrong is already starting their case nearly $50,000 in the hole.

Another thing which a subsequent accident does is create chaos and conflict between insurers. Both will try to pass the blame for the Plaintiff’s injuries onto each other. This passing of the buck is a very common tactic that our personal injury lawyers see. No insurer wants to take on full accountability for what happened, particularly if there was a second accident which may have led to the Plaintiff’s problems.

When this sort of thing happens, it’s productive if the insurers can work together on a funding formula. What this means is that there is an agreement between insurers as to what proportion of the damages each will pay; in the event that they have to pay for anything at all. That funding formula can be worked out early on, or at the 11th hour.

Let’s say that a funding formula has been worked out between two insurance companies. Insurer A agree to pay 70% of the claim. Insurer B agrees to pay 30%. Once that happens, both insurers will work in tandem to get as low a figure as possible from the Plaintiff in the form of a settlement, or at trial. If the Plaintiff agrees to resolve the cases for $100,000; that means that Insurer A will pay $70,000; and Insurer B will pay $30,000.  When insurers cannot work out a funding formula, it can get even messier with a Plaintiff agreeing to settle his/her claim with Insurer A, but not with Insurer B. This can take place in many legal and complicated forms. In Ontario, lawyers can use a Perringer Agreement to settle with the settling Defendant; but not with the non-settling Defendant in order to limit the potential liability of the Defendant who is in agreement to resolve the matter.

The competitive soccer landscape has changed a lot since the days of when I played.

When I played, there were scores and standings. There were stakes such that the games meant something. There were winners, and there were losers. And sometimes, because it’s soccer, there were even ties! There were championships to be won and lost. There was the thrill of victory, along with the agony of defeat.

From a soccer perspective, children were able to learn the right way to win. The good coaches taught the children to win with grace and dignity, and respect for their opponents. They were taught not to be a poor sport winner, or cocky, or gloating when winning.

On the flip side, children learned not only to loose, but how to loose without being a sore loser. Losing is part of sport and is a hard thing to learn, and a hard feeling to have to deal with. But, if you weren’t able to cope with losing, or to bounce back after a loss, then you wouldn’t be able to play. Even the greatest athletes of all time have lost.

Children learned how to play the game with a lead. And also learned how to play from behind to secure a dramatic comeback win.  These environments built character which is difficult to teach. It was learned in an environment almost impossible to replicate, through a shared experience with teammates and coaches who were going through the same thing.

Soccer however, at least in the sanctioned world of Ontario Soccer, has changed. Before the age of 13, there are no standings. There are no scores. There are no winners. There are no losers. You can say that every game, regardless of the performance of the teams, or the individual players, ends up in a tie because scores are not even recorded. No games have meaning. There are no stakes. And, because there are no stakes, that means that there is no pressure to win, or consequence of losing. This is much too egalitarian and there are repercussions to such a system.

What happens when scores and standings are introduced? What happens when the children encounter an environment where there are objective winners and losers? How will the children handle this given that they have been raised in a system where there are no stakes when they play their games? Children won’t build character. They won’t build resilience, or toughness, or grit. They don’t learn the right way to win, or how to loose. The just play the game, without any sort of emotional growth because all of the touchstones have been rubbed out because they’ve been deemed as too sharp for children to deal with.

Winning has become demonized in this system. Declaring a “winner” or a “champion” is viewed upon as an evil term because by being declared the winner, it means that you or someone had to defeat a set of opponents. This is seen as a giant wrong for soccer playing children in Ontario under the age of 13 years old.

This is not a reflection of how the world works. And for this, I will use the world of personal injury law to give some context.

In a personal injury case, particularly at trial, there will be a winner, and there will be a loser. Sometimes, the results of the case will be mixed, such that you can call the case a draw, or a tie for a sporting soccer term.

The Judge and Jury will deliver a verdict. The verdict will tell the score; and that score matters. The score matters for the injured accident victim (the Plaintiff) as it reflect the amount of money they will receive in damages for their case. This is paramount to most Plaintiffs in a personal injury case. The verdict also matters to a Defendant. It will reflect the amount of money which they need to pay out in damages to an injured Plaintiff. The lower that amount is for a Defendant, the better. This amount is also paramount to a Defendant insurer in a personal injury case.  It’s very clear that the score matters for both parties.

Imagine for an instance running a personal injury trial, where the system tells you that it’s forbidden to declare a winner of the case, or a loser of the case; or to announce the quantum of damages awarded, or not awarded. This is non sense.

Teaching children about winning and losing can be difficult. But, it doesn’t have to be. The harsh reality of winning or loosing a legal case would be difficult for a child to process. The best way this can be done is through a game, or through sport. So, it has always baffled me why the tool of teaching children how to handle winning the right way, and how to handle loosing the right way, is being stripped from them in the game of sanctioned soccer in Ontario.  I have always struggled with this. The narrative is that sport teaching kids about life, and how to be better people off the field. But, are we really developing or sharpening those skills when we are sheltering the children from the reality of the real world? I don’t think so. What other way of gradually introducing kids to the realities of life other than through sport. Keeping in mind that 99.9999% of these children will not go on to be professional athletes.

So, when they get to trial, or when they actually have to compete, will they have the tools to cope with idea of winning or loosing. If they win, will they know how to act with grace and dignity? Of, if they loose, will they have a complete emotional breakdown because they’ve been brought up in a system where there are no losers and no winners either?

I can tell you that such a system does not exist at law. There are clearly defined winners. And there are clearly defined losers. The Judge and Jury are the referees and administer and announce the score for all to hear.

But, things can get tricky when there are other motivations at stake.

Insurance companies are just that. They are companies. They aren’t people who are set out to do good in the world. Quite the contrary. While “doing good” or “acting kindly” might be part of their corporate literature, or the public face which they put out to the world; their staring goal and ending goal is always to make money. These are large, multi national and publicly traded corporations.  They exist to turn a profit. The aren’t registered charities.

Insurers turn to people to run their day to day operations. Your claim will be assigned to a real life human in the form an an insurance adjuster. And, this person will reach out to you over the phone to make initial contact about your case in an attempt to put a human touch to your case. The phone call(s) which you have with the adjuster will likely be recorded for what they call “customer service” or “training purposes“. And these calls are often very polite, cheery and cordial because people want to connect on a human level.

Have you ever wondered why these calls aren’t generated by artificial intelligence? It’s entirely possible that insurers can reduce their workforce by replacing adjusters with AI. Think of all of the jobs they would be able to cut, and all of the money they would be able to save. Aside from quality control (which I suspect will only get better as the AI gets better), the big miss in that department will be the human touch which adjusters have with claimants in getting them to spill their guts over the phone or over email.

You see, a person will make a connection with another person. The claimant might think that the insurance adjuster is on their side; or perhaps has their best interests in mind. The insurance adjuster might be a very kind, caring and sympathetic person. Or, they might not be and that’s why they are working for an insurance company and not a humanitarian organization. The reality is that the adjuster is there to do the bidding of their employer which is the insurance company. And at the end of the day, the purpose of the insurance company is to make money. Benefits will not rain down  from the sky if they don’t have to.  The insurance company will make more money denying claims, than approving each and every claim which crosses their desk.

Once you add AI into the mix, that human connection is gone. It becomes a far less personal experience. Less information (both factual and anecdotal) will be shared with the AI than it would with a person. This isn’t a good thing for the insurance company. Part of their business model and strategy is data collection for your claim in order to track the best way to defeat the claim, or minimize their exposure. Do you think that you will share your latest pickleball victory with an AI bot, or with a human being? Once you’ve shared that pickleball win with your human adjuster in passing, they now know that you’re a pickleball player (competitive or not). That information can be passed along to an investigator to take some not so flattering film of you playing pickleball when you’re insisting that your knee remains in pain from the car accident. Is your knee in pain from the car accident, or is it in pain from pickleball? Do you see how quickly the script can flip in their favour with one little tidbit of knowledge of your life? Doubt can be created instantly, and an entirely new narrative can come into play which works to defeat your claim and reduce the amount and frequency of benefits which you’ve been receiving. The insurance company won’t likely get this information out of claimants from an AI chatbot. They are more likely to get this information out of claimants from real people who work as adjusters. But, the juice for the insurer might be worth the squeeze if they’re able to cut their workforce significantly to save on salaries, office space, benefit packages, payroll tax, bonuses, or HR messes. Machines might just be that much cheaper, regardless of quality that it’s worth it.

It’s not just car accident adjusters we are talking about. The same thinking applies for short term disability, long term disability, mortgage disability, fire loss, property damage, travel insurance, health or medical coverage, or any other sort of insurance product or coverage which you can think of. The call(s) will be recorded, data will be collected, and everything which you say or submit to the insurer will be analyzed with a fine tooth comb.

When the insurance company insists on a call, that’s when you know it’s time to “lawyer up” so to say and retain a personal injury  lawyer. A good adjuster will aggressively try to get as much information they can out of you before you retain a personal injury lawyer. They know that the information coming from you will be completely unfiltered and unvetted. You will likely slip up and offer information which you should not be offering. You will agree (because you’re nice and want to cooperate) to do things or to attend at clinics which you shouldn’t be attending. You will go along with the insurance company’s plans and let them drive the narrative for your claim. Your narrative will become their narrative which gives you an illusion that it’s in your best interest when it’s not. You will find yourself going to see doctors or therapists at clinics which weren’t your choice; rather they were at the recommendation of the insurance company. Your attending one of the insurer’s preferred clinics, not your preferred clinic. Think of that long and hard and think about how that will play itself out in the long run. Their guys drafting reports on your injuries and your life through their lens (not yours) in order to stay as one of their preferred clinics who the insurer trusts and likes and refers business to….

Some car accidents happen for more serious reasons like driving while distracted on a cell phone, or drunk driving.

Regardless of how the car accident happened, the police are responsible for investigating these car accidents, reporting them accurately, and charging the at fault driver when it’s appropriate to do so.

In recent years, Goldfinger Injury Lawyers has seen the trend of police officers asking drivers who have been involved in car accidents to “self report” the accidents to a self reporting collision centre.

We saw this sort of thing years ago when the damage to the vehicles was minimal, and there were no personal injuries to report. This made sense in the vein of no harm, no foul.

But, nowadays we are seeing a more disturbing trend. More serious accidents; ie; accidents where there is serious property damage along with personal injuries are also being self reported because the police aren’t taking the time to report these accidents themselves.

When these accidents aren’t reported by the police, personal injury lawyers and insurers see a drop in quality of the details from the accident scene itself. Witnesses are not being interviewed by the police; or if they are; those interviews are not being taken at the scene of the accident. Rather, if any such witness interviews take place, they are being done well after the accident took place such that the quality of the information is not as fresh as it would be had the interview taken place at the scene of the car accident.

At the self collision reporting centre, it becomes a s/he said vs s/he said. Nobody can get their stories straight; and nobody will admit to any wrongdoing. Instead, it’s always the other driver’s fault, and the officer behind the desk doesn’t know who is to blame. The dynamics of the reporting completely changes in the day(s) following the car accident; particularly when the reporting is not done at the scene of the accident. There’s no way for the police officer to get a sense of any of the factors which may have contributed to the car accident such as:

1. The Weather
2. The Flow of Traffic
3. The sunlight, darkness, fog or glare at the time of the accident which may have impacted visibility. How can you possibly recreate or understand this without seeing it for yourself at the scene of the accident?
4. The landscape of the intersection or accident scene
5. The slope of the roadway
6. Any hazards, signage or road obstacles which may have impacted the drivers
7. The traction, or lack thereof, on the road at the time of the collision or caused by the tires on the vehicles at the time of the accident. How can an officer make any sort of determination on the tread of the tire(s) without seeing it for themselves at the scene of the accident?
8. The mechanical condition of the vehicle(s) at the time of the accident. Was one of the vehicles in a state of disrepair making it unfit and unsafe to drive?
9. Was the visibility of one of the drivers impacted by any other factor(s)? You would be amazed by the number of incidents we see when people are travelling with big boxes in the front or back seats which impact visibility, or a large dog which makes sight lines hard to see; or perhaps children getting out of their seats and distracting the driver.
10. Do we even have the right drivers here; or has one of the drivers pulled a switcharoo with another person at the collision reporting centre because:

a) the actual at fault driver was driving with a suspended license

b) the actual at fault driver did not have a valid driver’s license

c) the actual at fault driver was drunk, or driving under the influence

d) the actual at fault driver did not have insurance, or was an excluded driver under the policy of insurance covering the vehicle

e) the actual at fault driver was on bail with a driving restriction, or was evading authorities at the time

f) the actual at fault driver has a long history of car accidents and does not want another car accident on his/her record, so they sent another person to stand in their place and take the blame

People will go to great lengths to avoid liability and the potential repercussions which come with it. Our lawyers have learned not to underestimate the creative schemes people will come up with so that the litigation finger does not point in their direction, or to avoid getting fined or ticketed by the police.

These are just some scenarios where people attempt to skirt the blame. It creates errors and inaccuracies in reporting these collisions. Police seem not to mind so long as the collision gets reported; and then it’s on to the next task. It has become an exercise in managing the volume of accidents and incidents, rather than getting to the truth and getting things right. Quality and accuracy have taken a toll; when these things should be of primary importance.

Does inaccurate police reporting have any impact on a personal injury case?

Absolutely! At trial, a Plaintiff will give his/her version of events. The Defendant will give their version of events. The Judge will know that each party stands something to gain. This is why they will put more weight into the evidence from the police, given that they are a neutral party to the litigation with no skin in the game so to say. If the police don’t get it right at first instance, and the Judge puts a lot of weight in their evidence; the the Judge is relying on bad evidence to render their decision. When bad or inaccurate evidence is relied on at trial and given weight; it will produce a result which does not reflect the truth of what transpired.

There have been a lot of success stories from proper and monitored methadone use. People who were once addicts and in a dark place see the light and are able to rehabilitate and return to living a positive and productive life. They are able to successfully reintegrate into society and function properly. It’s no longer the drugs talking. People have regained their lives.

Methadone dispensing is monitored by a doctor, and dispensed by a regulated health care professional like a pharmacist. These are people who have been trained to know what they’re doing. Because if they don’t, or if they make a mistake, there can be terrible consequences.

Unfortunately, our law firm Goldfinger Injury Lawyers is seeing the consequences of what happens when methadone clinics aren’t properly doing their jobs.

What do we mean by this? How is it that a methadone clinic isn’t doing their job?

It’s quite simple. It’s the methadone clinic’s job to dispense the correct dosage of methadone. Each patient is prescribed a different dosage from their doctor. Determining the right dosage is highly complex and individualized and depends on a lot of factors which go beyond age, gender, weight, and BMI. This is why doctors have to go through the training which they do.

But once the doctor has determined the right dosage, it’s then up to the pharmacist to get it right, and to dispense the methadone the right way.

Getting the dosage wrong, or giving a patient a dosage which was intended for a different patient can have serious, if not deadly consequences.

Imagine this. You’ve been on the methadone program for a year, and you’ve now been weened down to a dosage of 10ml. But, instead of 10ml, the pharmacist messed up on the calculation and missed a decimal point and dispenses 100ml (10x higher than what you were supposed to take).  How do you think a person’s body would react? Do you think this person’s overall treatment would be set back, and if so, for how long? Would they need to go to hospital right away? Would they need an Nalaxone injection? Nalaxone (Narcan) is the drug used in order to temporarily reverse the effects of a methadone overdoes. Is a Narcan injection readily available where the dispensing error or methadone overdose took place? What will happen if this person had an overdose and does not get medical attention right away?

Our lawyers have seen a lot of unfortunate situations where a person has unintentionally overdosed as a result of a pharmacy’s dispensing error. Mistakes should not happen, but the reality especially these days where quality control isn’t what it used to be is that these mistakes are happening more than what you might expect.

Why are these dispensing errors happening?

It’s hard to say, but we have some ideas.

For starters, the methadone programs are popular (there is an opioid crisis) and they are busy. When clinics are busy, which they often are, it’s very important for them to be properly staffed. But, on some occasions the methadone clinics might be understaffed, or staffed with inexperienced personnel, or people who are exhausted having worked multiple shifts or overtime. Remember, all it takes is a single mistake for a dispensing error to happen. The pharmacists and pharmacy assistants might be over worked and tired for their particular shift which may cause lapses in concentration or losses of focus. This is fertile breeding ground for a dispensing error to take place.  It just takes one lapse of judgment for a dispensing error to happen. No ill intent is required.

Many methadone clinics operate at very high volumes of patients and carries. When you are working with so much in terms of numbers, there are bound to be errors, mistakes and mishaps. Being busy that day is not an excuse for a licensed pharmacist.

Other times, we see mass confusion. Tens of people rushing to a counter to get served. The system which the pharmacy has to dispense the carries isn’t very organized, or not properly equipped to handle the volume of patients seeking methadone. By accident, a patient gets dispensed with a completely different patient’s dosage causing an involuntary overdose. Again, this is no excuse for a licensed pharmacy.

There is a stigma around these dispensing error cases involving methadone. That negative stigma is directly related to methadone and how the person got on the methadone program in the first place. More often than not it’s because s/he abused illicit narcotics (heroine), or abused opioid medication which they were taking for recreational purposes. What’s hard for the victim of these dispensing error cases is getting others to believe that they are the victims of an involuntary overdose! Convincing doctors, nurses, friends or family that they were the victim of a dispensing error if a person has a history of falling off the rails is quite challenging, not to mention embarrassing for someone who has been struggling with their addiction issues but working really hard to get over the hump. But, with the right lawyer and the right evidence it can be done. And I think that’s the hardest thing. Getting over the shame and embarrassment and the pushback from others after you’ve been the victim of a dispensing error. It really did happen. You didn’t intend for it to happen. You were an innocent victim even if your history of drug usage isn’t innocent, on this occasion, you were in the right and they were in the wrong. Getting people to believe your narrative can be an uphill battle. But, with a little courage, a little luck, along with a skilled personal injury lawyer, that hill won’t be as difficult to climb.

Completing the right paperwork. Completing that paperwork the right way, by the right professionals, and completing the paperwork on time. If you’ve done those things, then you are well on your way. While there are no guarantees at success, getting the paperwork done correctly will ensure that your claim doesn’t fail before it even gets started.

Once of the small changes we’ve seen over the past 2 years are the changes to the OCF-1 Application for Accident Benefits.

The OCF-1 Application for Accident Benefits is the FIRST and MOST IMPORTANT form which you can file with your car insurer after a car accident.

If you file this form properly and on time, your accident benefit claim will be live and open. Subsequent forms and documents can be filed afterwards. The OCF-1 Application for Accident Benefits is the form that gets the ball rolling. If you don’t fill out the OCF-1 Application for Accident Benefits, you won’t be able to have an accident benefit case; and it will also have an impact on your tort claim for pain and suffering against the at fault driver. Not to mention that you won’t have any access to medical/rehabilitation benefits to get you better; or access to any attendant care benefits (up to $3,000/month), income replacement benefits (up to $400/week or more if you purchased optional benefits) or non-earner benefits ($185/week).

A few years ago, the OCF-1 Application for Accident Benefit form changed. Those changes were for the better.

The old OCF-1 Application for Accident Benefits form was 8 pages in length.

The newer version of the OCF-1 Application for Accident Benefits form is now just 5 pages in length.

The older version contained a chart which you were required to fill out with the name and address of your previous employers throughout the years. The chart also sought information about your job title, essential duties of the job, hours worked per week, along with the gross income earned during that period of time. It was rather detailed. But, all of the information still needed to be corroborated by employment files, tax returns, and an OCF-2 Employers Confirmation of Income Form. This section always seemed like a big make work assignment in order to frustrate the applicant with redundant forms. The applicant could not rely on what they included in these work charts, and not could an insurer. At the end of the day, the applicant needed to produce another form certified by their employer (the OCF-2 Employers Confirmation of Income Form); along with all of their source documents in order to establish that they were gainfully employed and earned what they said that they were earning. More often than not, the information contained in the chart completed which was by the applicant, did not necessarily exactly match the source information which gets collected. Sometimes there were deliberate attempts to deceive. Other times it was a case a of misremembering, or not having all of the right details at your fingertips at the time of completing the form. More often than not, these were people who just didn’t have all of the details at their disposal and they were trying to complete the form as accurately as possible to the best of their ability. Still, the information needed to be verified and corroborated so it was really a big exercise in duplicity.

The new OCF-1 Application for Accident Benefits form has the very simply statement:

I have missed time from work as a
result of the accident

Yes No N/A

Date returned to work ______

The make work project is no longer. It’s widely understood that the Applicant will need to produce more information in order to accurately establish their employment and earnings.

In the old OCF-1 Application for Accident Benefits, Part 7 of the form was devoted solely to the Caregiver Benefit. It sought questions about the number of people who the applicant was caring for prior to the car accident. This sections stopped making sense after September 1, 2010 when the Caregiver Benefit was completely eliminated for standard, non-catastrophic accident benefit claims. It also didn’t make sense because the Applicant needed to complete an election form to select the Caregiver Benefit. It was not automatically applied. The Applicant had the option of selecting the Income Replacement Benefit, Non Earner Benefit, or the Caregiver Benefit. It was up to the Applicant to decide. Once the Applicant elected the Caregiver benefit, then s/he could inform the insurer about the specific details for those whom they were looking after. But, to have an entire section devoted to the Caregiver Benefit on a standard OCF-1 Application for Accident Benefits long after the Caregiver Benefit had been eliminated for non-catastrophic accident benefit claims made no sense. It simply took up space and made the OCF-1 Application for Accident Benefits longer and more intimidating for claimants than it needed to be.

The newer version of the OCF-1 Application for Accident Benefits completely eliminates Section 7 referring to the Caregiver Benefit. The only mention of a Caregiver Benefit comes in the following context as it relates to the Applicant’s employment status before the car accident:

Were you employed before the Accident?

Were you not empl0yed before the Accident?

Were you a Caregiver before the Accident?

This is a much more simple and straight forward way of getting answers. It would then be up to the insurer to follow up with the Applicant if s/he qualifies for any of the benefits. Unfortunately, this follow up exercise often comes with more forms and more information. But, that’s par for the course and is a large reason as to why people retain personal injury lawyers in order to deal with insurance companies. It’s not fun. It’s a lot of work. And it’s an adversarial process. The insurance company is working in a conflict of interest. They exist to turn a profit and to maximize their profits for their investors/shareholders. Yet, at the same time, they market themselves as caring and compassionate and fair to their insureds. In order to achieve these goals, they need to spend money to pay for the claims of their insureds. But every dollar which they spend on those claims, is a dollar lost in profits. You can see the paradox.

It’s now wonder that Canadians tend to travel during the cold weather months. But, when travelling outside of Canada, there are important travel considerations. Health care is free for Canadian residents within Canada. But, it’s not free when travelling outside of Canada. This is why it’s important to consider some form of travel insurance.

Here are some things to consider.

Ontario Car Insurance will cover some medical and treatment costs if you are involved in a car accident outside of Ontario (like driving your vehicle on a long road trip through the United States). The car insurer will pay for the medical and treatment expenses so long as they agree that those expenses are reasonable and necessary. There is no guarantee that the insurer will agree to this, but it’s nice to know that some degree of coverage is available. Many people don’t know that they can make a claim through their Ontario car insurance for a car accident which took place in the United States. This is not a claim against the at fault driver in an Ontario Court. Rather, it’s a first party claim with your own car insurer (regardless of who is at fault). This is called an “accident benefit claim“, and depending on the nature and severity of the injuries, there might be coverage in upwards of $1,000,000 for medical and treatment costs not covered by OHIP provided that the injuries are deemed catastrophic; along with up to $400/week in the form of an income replacement benefit. All of this is available for an Ontario driver or passenger; for a car accident which took place outside of Ontario (even in the United States).

People get confused thinking that these accident benefits apply to injuries related to things not arising from the use or operation of a motor vehicle. Say for example, in a slip and fall abroad, or a dog attack. These accident benefits through your own Ontario Car insurance are NOT available in these types of situations.

When you have serious injuries from a slip and fall, or any other sort of injury outside of Canada; where do you turn and what can you do to make sure that you’re covered. Going to a foreign hospital for treatment or for surgery can cost a lot of money. This is why it’s important to have adequate travel insurance to cover you in the event of such an unfortunate incident.

Some travel insurance is available through credit cards. It’s best to check with your credit card provider how much is available, how their program works, and what triggers the coverage. Under some credit cards, you need to make a purchase in the country which you are visiting in order for the coverage to kick in. Other times, you need to book the flight. Other times, the coverage applies automatically. But, it might only cover the individual card holder and not a spouse, dependant, or travel companion. Each travel insurance program is different. That’s why it’s important to call your credit card company and find out how their coverage works, and how it triggers. It’s also important to find out how to make a claim. Is there a toll free # to call and the claim can be made over the phone? Does the claim have to be made online? If so, what’s the website you need to visit? Are there specific claim forms that need to be completed and if that’s the case, is it a good idea to have those forms ready in case of emergency? Generally, there are claim forms that the doctors or the hospital will need to complete.

Often, more comprehensive travel insurance can be purchased directly from an insurer. They offer annual plans which cover an unlimited number of trips, or specific one time travel coverage. Shopping around for the best plan which meets your needs and offers you the most bang for your buck is always a great idea. These travel insurance plans might also offer additional coverage like flight protection, rental car protection, loss of luggage coverage and/or hotel cancellation or accommodation protection in case you need to extend your stay on account of medical reasons. Securing travel specific coverage when you are travelling is never a bad idea. On the other hand, travelling without any travel insurance at all is not a good idea.

Here’s the kicker. Just because you have travel insurance does NOT guarantee that you will be covered, or that the insurer will pay what you’re asking. Sometimes coverage is approved at 100% of the claim. Other times, it’s approved at less than that. Still, other times, it’s denied completely. We’ve seen many instances where claims for medical treatment have been denied at first instance by the travel insurer, only to be approved on appeal, or after litigation using a trusted and experienced personal injury lawyer.

It’s also important to know how payment works under these policies. Some policies will pay the doctor or the hospital directly with no deductible being charged to you. Other policies require that the claimant pay the total cost upfront, and then seek reimbursement from the insurer after the fact. It’s important to know how payment works because if it’s the later where the claimant pays for the treatment upfront, but the claimant does not have the money to pay upfront; then what good is that sort of coverage in the time of emergency? Ideally, you would like for the insurer to pay the doctor/hospital directly, with zero deductible payable to the insurer from the claimant. But, not all insurance policies are created equally. Some policies are more friendly to claimants. Other policies are more friendly to insurers. It’s all contained in the fine print of the insurance policy itself. Not all of these details are disclosed to claimants before they purchase the insurance policy (although, they ought to be). You shouldn’t need to be a personal injury lawyer in order to understand how your insurance policy which you purchased works.

I sure have.

As a personal injury lawyer, we get calls all of the time from people who have been injured taking public transit. People fall because a bus stops suddenly. People get injured in a serious public transit collision. Are these accidents preventable had people been wearing a seatbelt. Or, perhaps, would the injuries to the riders be less significant, or even non-existent, if seatbelts were required.

And I wondered what it would look like if there were laws requiring riders to buckle up on buses, subways or streetcars.

Would things be safer? Would transit slow down because riders were required to buckle up? Would taking a bus or a streetcar be less convenient? Would having a wear a seatbelt act as a deterrent to people taking public transit? Would transit police really enforce these laws and ticket people?

I was very curious as to how this would ever play out. Seeing as I don’t manage a City’s operations, or those of a public transit provider, I would just have to wait and see it play out in the real world. And, wait patiently I did until it finally played out.

And, I would like to share with you what happened.

Our story takes us to Hong Kong where in late 2025 the government introduced legislation requiring all riders of public buses and other forms of public transportation to wear seat belts. The laws kicked in on January 25, 2026. Failure to do so would result in a fine of $5,000HKD (approximately $872CAD) and up to three months in jail! These were, by our measure, the steepest fines we could find for not wearing a seatbelt around; in particular as they related to riders taking public transit. There was now an element of “risk” whenever you rode on a public bus.

Consider that bus fares in Hong Kong vary depending on the route and length of the journey. Urban local fares typically range from $2.30-$52.60 HKD (.40c – $9.15CAD). Imagine paying .40 cents; and getting hit with an $872 ticket, plus potential jail time. You’d better make sure to buckle up with those penalties. Some people may have been deterred from riding the bus knowing of the potential consequences if they forget to buckle up.

But the laws only applied to seated passengers. It did not apply to standing passengers on a crowded bus. I’m not sure how the law would apply on an empty bus if a passenger chose to stand instead of sit. Would you be forced to sit and buckle up if there were seats available? How would that be enforced? What would happen if you did not want to sit, or you did not want to sit next to a certain person for whatever reason. Here is a reason: The person you were forced to sit next to was unhygienic. I can recall many a travel on public transit standing or sitting next to someone who had smelled like they defecated in their pants or who vomited on the trip.

Here was a report:

“Nobody move! It’s the police!” a plainclothes officer who had been posing as a passenger is seen saying as he rises from his seat, brandishes his credentials, and points out all those without seat belts secured.

That sting resulted in 31 passengers receiving fines. Even before the Jan 25 law kicked in, passengers on minibuses and cars were already required to don seat belts.

There was a story out of Hong Kong that one rider put on his seatbelt. But, it would not unbuckle. There was a piece of foil in the buckle mechanism which prevented it from unbuckling. The passenger was stuck for around 45 minutes and very uncomfortable. Police, ambulance and firefighters had to attend at the scene to free the passenger, who was eventually transported to hospital to make sure that they were ok. You can only imagine the panic and embarrassment being trapped on a bus for 45 minutes; needing to be released by emergency personnel?

The public outcry against these laws was deafening; to the point the government repealed them completely. The experiment of requiring seatbelts for public transit riders had gone totally wrong. A new seatbelt regulation for public transit users has not been considered.

This is not to suggest that a public seatbelt law on public transit cannot work. But, it shows that much like any law; if it’s not properly thought out, studied, and subject to public consultation; it likely won’t work out the way that it was intended. Or, perhaps the intention of the law works; only it’s not well received and there is so much public backlash that the law has to be repealed. Can you imagine Hong Kong Courts having to deal with trials for people who aren’t wearing their seatbelts on public transit. Leading to an overcrowding problem at prisons which become full of convicts who are guilty of not wearing a seat belt on public transit?

Is there a future where these laws become more prevalent? Not sure. It’s clear that the Hong Kong experiment failed in spectacular fashion. But, this is not to suggest that it cannot work at all. For starters, the potential jail time of not wearing a seat belt on a public transit bus is a bit much. But the idea of having functional seat belts on buses or street cars isn’t crazy. Penalizing people for not wearing them is a bit of a stretch considering that many passengers stand up because they can’t find a seat or don’t want to sit down. If you are enforcing a penalty for not wearing a seat belt on a bus, are you also then compelled to enforce a penalty for those passengers who are standing but not holding onto a grab bar? It would be a pretty arbitrary application of the law when it comes to enforcement which does not make for good law. But, how about just having seatbelts for passengers, without the laws. If you want to wear them..Great! If not…fine…and you’ll have the peace of mind that you won’t have to pay a fine or go to jail. That would sit right with me.

The winter storm was not unexpected. It was widely reported across various news outlets that it would snow, and that it would snow a lot. The reports were accurate (for a change!). Activities, events, programs, and flights were cancelled; rightfully so. People were warned to stay off the roads. The warnings and cancellations were warranted on Sunday.

But Monday things were a different story!

The snow stopped across the GTA on Sunday evening around 930-10PM. Cities and Municipalities had at least 12 hours to do their thing to clear the roadways, sidewalks and other routes. That should be plenty of time for cities who are no strangers to winter and snow. I have no doubt that a city like Montreal could handle that sort of turnaround time. They are a serious winter city. Toronto is not.

Yet, cities and municipalities across the GTA seemingly could not handle it. Schools were cancelled quite fast, with little to no resistance, discussion or debate.

It was once a policy for school boards to stay open at all costs. Dozens of feet of snow would not stop the schools from closing. Buses, sure..They would stop running. But not schools. Get the kids in school, so that they can socialize and learn. .  Even if it was just for a handful of students who came. It’s no wonder why those who were in school 20+ years ago are more resilient and socially normalized. They were forced to deal with adversity and adverse conditions. They grew and became adults. I fear our children will remain children because of things like this.

We can all understand why buses to schools should cancel if the roads are less than ideal. But having the entire school cancel when over 80% of TDSB students can walk to school or live within a 1km distance from their school; when the city had over 12 hours to plow the main sidewalks and the school boards had all of that time to plow their parking lot? I bet you that over 80 percent of your street’s driveways or parking lots for apartment complexes were cleared of snow this morning (or last night when the snow stopped). We learned from COVID that kids belong amongst other kids, and belong in school. They do not belong at home glazing over screens in the name of “remote learning“. How much remote learning can these children handle? Their eyes are growing more empty and blank by the Snow Day.

As an aside, the roads sure looked plowed to me this morning.

In 2026 school boards are fast to cancel; folding like a house of cards. They set poor examples when it comes to resilience, showing the backbone of a sea snail. It’s a terrible example for children. When the going gets tough, the school boards are happy to pack it in and call it a day.

The cancellations come fast in the name of “safety“. As a personal injury lawyer and a father of two, I can tell you that the decision to cancel schools so quickly when there is little to no snow actively falling has very little to do with safety. Rather, it has to do with money, or saving money that is. It also has to do with the school boards and municipalities opting to choose the path of least resistance rather than a path which requires organization, work, thought and effort.

It would take a clear plan, thought, work and effort to clear the snow from the parking lots, walking paths and city streets and sidewalks in a timely manner for the kids to get to school. It can be done and it has been done in the past. But why put forth the time, effort, and potential payment of overtime wages when you don’t have to…..

It might be hard on the teachers, admin and caretakers to drive into work if the roads are not cleared and less than optimal. The roads can be cleared and is has been done in the past and can be done again. But that too would take work, effort, and the potential payment of overtime wages. But, why put forth the maximum effort when the City can take it’s time in getting the job done slowly and for less money.

If people are out and about, then there is a greater chance of an accident happening. If there are accidents, then city resources would have to be deployed (fire, ambulance, police). City resources are already stretched thin as it is. Having people stay at home reduces the chances of an accident and puts less stress on the City’s emergency response resources. It’s best for the City budget to keep people at home; and what better way of doing so than working with the school boards to encourage calling a snow day (when it’s not actively snowing). School can happen, and should happen; but why? It’s no longer about educating or socializing the children. Instead, it has to do with other factors which are completely unrelated to education. If it was about education, the kids would be in school. 

What the school closures serve is to reduce productivity. Parents need to miss work, or cannot be as productive at work as they would otherwise be. Childcare needs to be paid for if the parents cannot miss work, which is expensive. Or, maybe the kids just stay at home completely alone; left to do as they wish completely unsupervised. None of these situations are ideal. But, that’s what the school boards and the government are expecting of parents. At the same time, they still make excessive demands on parents in the form of taxes. When was the last time you got a municipal tax holiday due to inclement weather? On one hand they expect you to parent on a work day. On the other hand, they expect you to earn an income to pay for their “services” which they either fail to provide or do a poor job at providing. If you were to give the cities and municipalities a Google Review, it would be the lowest possible review. And yet, it didn’t have to be this way. It didn’t snow today. The roads and sidewalks are clear. There is no reason to keep the kids home and away from school when this sort of thing happens. It’s not good for anyone.