Catastrophic Impairment: Aviva v. Pastore

The Court of Appeal has released an important decision relating to catastrophic impairment:

Aviva Canada Inc. v. Pastore, 2012 ONCA 642 (C.A.)

The insured was injured in a 2002 motor vehicle accident as a pedestrian and sustained an ankle injury. She alleged her gait had been altered and was diagnosed with a pain disorder.  A DAC found her to be catastrophically impaired in 2005 due to a marked mental or behavioural impairment under s. 2(1.1)(g) of the SABS.  An assessment under s. 2(1.1)(g) is carried out with reference to the AMA Guides, which provide for an assessment of function in four categories:

(1)              Activities of daily living (ADL);

(2)              Social functioning;

(3)              Concentration, persistence and pace; and

(4)              Deterioration or decompensation in work or work-like settings.

Pastore was diagnosed with a number of psychological disorders and the DAC concluded that she had a class 4 marked impairment in activities of daily living.  The DAC concluded she was catastrophically impaired on the basis of the one class 4 impairment.  The insurer did not agree with the assessment and the matter proceeded to mediation then arbitration.

At arbitration, the arbitrator agreed with the DAC assessors and held that one marked impairment was enough to comply with the Guides approach to impairment.  In addition, it was appropriate to consider physical pain in assessing mental disorder, as it was not possible to factor out all physically based pain since it was intertwined with mentally based pain. The Director's Delegate upheld the decision, but the Divisional Court overturned the arbitrator.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and reinstated the arbitrator`s decision.  The conclusion that only one marked impairment is sufficient to meet the definition of catastrophic impairment was a reasonable one. In addition, it was not an error for the DAC assessors to consider both physical and mental pain.

Pastore appears to have lowered the bar for catastrophic impairment based on a mental disorder and more claimants may be able to fit themselves into a catastrophic designation than prior to this decision.

Motion to Add Municipal Defendant Dismissed

A motion to add a municipality as a defendant was recently dismissed.

In Temporin v. DiVincenzo, 2012 ONSC 5213 (S.C.J.), the plaintiff was injured in a 2007 motor vehicle accident. Although the City of Burlington had been named as a third party, the plaintiff did not move to add it as a defendant until 2012. The plaintiff ordered the police report in 2007, but did not receive officer's notes as counsel had inadvertently neglected to send payment.  The notes were ultimately received in 2010 when a follow up request was made.  They referred to road conditions consisting of "fierce" black ice. The plaintiff argued that the two year limitation period for adding the municipality began in 2010.

Parayeski J. dismissed the motion. The failure to follow up for police notes until 2010 did not give rise to a discoverability issue. The plaintiff had not exercised reasonable diligence and even though there was no prejudice to the municipality, this did not justify it being added as a defendant post-limitation.

This decision is a good example of the maxim that limitation periods are not enacted to be ignored.  The burden is on plaintiffs to act diligently to identify defendants within the appropriate limitation period.

Election of Arbitration or Court Proceeding

Gordyukova v. Certas Direct Insurance Company, 2012 ONCA 563 (C.A.)

The subject of this appeal is s. 281.1(1) of the Insurance Act, which provides that an insured shall commence a court proceeding or arbitration within two years of the insurer's refusal to pay benefits.

The plaintiff was in a motor vehicle accident in 2001.  She applied for accident benefits and a dispute arose over certain medical benefits.  After mediation failed, she issued a Statement of Claim in 2002. In 2005, the insurer advised her she had exhausted her non-catastrophic limits for medical and rehabilitation benefits.  Her application for a catastrophic designation was rejected so she commenced an arbitration at FSCO in 2008.  Certas brought a motion to stay the arbitration on the grounds that the CAT dispute should be added to the court action. The arbitrator ruled the plaintiff could not proceed with both the court action and the arbitration, but could proceed with arbitration if she discontinued the court action.  The arbitrator ruled he was not ruling on the limitation issue.  The plaintiff gave notice of her intention to discontinue the court action and proceed with arbitration, and the insurer brought a motion seeking a ruling on the limitation issue.  The arbitrator ruled the plaintiff could add all of the matters pending before the Superior Court to the arbitration.

Certas appealed, arguing that the plaintiff could not re-elect the method of proceeding eight years after the court action was commenced. The matter was appealed to the Director 's Delegate then the Divisional Court.

The Court of Appeal held that the arbitration should be stayed.  Section 281.1(1) of the Insurance Act requires an election between a court action and an arbitration. It provides that a proceeding shall be brought within two years. The insured has the choice of forum, but cannot switch forums after the expiry of the limitation period.  Since the court proceeding included a claim for "continued accident benefits", it would necessarily include a determination of the CAT issue. 

Threshold Motion Successful

Surveillance evidence can be useful in showing that the plaintiff does not meet the Insurance Act threshold.

In Dahrouj v. Aduvala, 2012 ONSC 4090 (S.C.J.), the plaintiff was injured in a minor rear end collision.  She was a homemaker and alleged she developed chronic pain which impaired her functioning in the home and her social interaction in the community.

The evidence at trial was that the plaintiff visited her family doctor on multiple occasions prior to the accident complaining of head, neck and back pain.  She made similar complaints post-accident.  The defendant obtained surveillance showing the plaintiff engaged in a variety of activities, including scraping snow and ice off her car, pumping gas, reaching for groceries on an upper shelf and carrying groceries.  Justice Hackland described the video as “particularly devastating” to the plaintiff’s credibility, as it showed the plaintiff stretching and lifting, the activities she alleged restricted her functioning as a homemaker.

The plaintiff’s expert diagnosed her with “central sensitization”, based on a 45 minute interview and relying only on the plaintiff’s self reports.  Justice Hackland preferred the defence expert, who conducted a more thorough assessment and whose opinion was corroborated by the surveillance evidence.

Justice Hackland held the plaintiff had not proved she sustained a serious, permanent impairment of an important physical function.  As a result, she was not entitled to general damages and her recovery was limited to $32,000, the amount the jury awarded for past housekeeping. 

Surveillance of the plaintiff can be extremely important in defending claims, especially those alleging chronic pain.  When surveillance can be combined with expert opinion, it can be effective in showing that the plaintiff’s claim does not meet the threshold.

Adding an Insurer as a Defendant Rather than a Statutory Third Party

Can an insurer add itself as a defendant rather than as a statutory third party?

In Azad v. Dekran, 2012 ONSC 4257 (S.C.J.), the Personal insured the defendant and brought a motion pursuant to r. 13.01 to intervene as an added defendant.  It wished to allege that the accident did not occur or was staged and to crossclaim against its insured.  It preferred this route rather than being added as a statutory third party since s. 258(14) of the Insurance Act prohibits a statutory third party from taking a position incongruous to its insured.

Master Dash dismissed the motion, holding that it was not a proper use of r. 13.01.  One of the purposes of s. 258 is to permit an insurer to contest the plaintiff’s claim in a situation where it denies coverage.  The plaintiff’s action is not the appropriate forum to decide issues between the insured and insurer.  Any dispute could be decided in subsequent proceedings, including a proceeding to recover the statutory minimum paid to the plaintiff. 

Master Dash noted that if the accident was staged, the plaintiff would not be entitled to damages; on the other hand, if the trial court did award damages, it would mean there was a legitimate accident and there would be no basis for a crossclaim against the insured.  In addition, as a statutory third party, the insurer would have a right to discover its insured.

Master Dash refused to follow the decision in Esho v. Dekran, 2012 ONSC 3638 (S.C.J.), where the insurer was added as a defendant.  Now that there are conflicting decisions on this issue, perhaps it will be up to the Divisional Court to provide clarity.

Production of Statements Made Following an Accident

A recent motion decision deals with two issues that can arise in defending claims: the extent of litigation privilege with respect to statements made following an incident, and whether reviewing such a statement prior to examination for discovery waives privilege.

In Knox v. Applebaum Holdings, 2012 ONSC 4181 (CanLii) the plaintiff brought a motion seeking production of a statement prepared by the defendant’s property manager following an accident in its parking lot.  The accident occurred at 8:55 p.m..  The property manager was quickly notified, travelled to the parking lot, took pictures and called her risk manager to report what she had found at 12:35 a.m.  At this point, she was aware that two people had been injured.  She typed up a statement detailing her recollection of what she had seen and learned of the accident while it was fresh in her mind.  The statement was delivered to the adjuster later that day.

On the motion, the issues were whether the statement was protected by litigation privilege and whether privilege was lost when the property manager reviewed it when she prepared for her examination for discovery.

Justice Hockin held that litigation privilege attached to the document.  The property manager knew there was an accident and that two people had been injured.  She believed that litigation would follow.  It did not matter that the defendant was not represented by counsel at the time.  The dominant purpose of the document was to facilitate her employer’s defence and to assist in her forensic involvement of the case. 

Privilege was not waived.  Justice Hockin relied on Wronick v. Allstate (1997), 7 C.P.C. (4^th) 285 (Gen. Div.) where Justice Leitch held that reviewing a privilege document to refresh one’s memory in preparation for examination for discovery does not amount to a waiver of privilege.

Failure to Add Property Owner as Additional Insured

Many winter maintenance contracts require the contractor to add the property owner as an additional insured on its policy.  But what happens when the contractor fails to do so and the owner is sued?

In Papapetrou v. 1054422 Ontario Ltd., 2012 ONCA 506 (C.A.), the plaintiff sued the Cora Group, alleging she slipped and fell on black ice on its property.  Cora contracted with Collingwood Landscape for winter maintenance services.  In the service contract, Collingwood agreed to name Cora as an additional insured on its CGL policy, but failed to do so.  On a motion for summary judgment, Collingwood was ordered to assume Cora's defence and indemnify it for damages.  Collingwood appealed.  Cora conceded that the order to indemnify was premature so the primary issue on appeal was whether the motions judge erred in ordering Collingwood to assume Cora's defence.

The Court of Appeal set aside the original Order and substituted an Order that Collingwood pay for Cora's defence.

Simmons J.A. held that Collingwood's breach of its contractual obligation to name Cora as an additional insured did not create a duty to defend; rather, it gave rise to a remedy in damages.  The quantum of such damages is the amount Cora will be required to pay for a defence of the claims that Collingwood's insurer would have paid had Collingwood fulfilled its contractual obligations.  The costs would include all of the costs of Cora's defence except for those incurred exclusively to defend claims that do not arise from Collingwood's performance or non-performance of the contract.  Cora was entitled to separate counsel given there were distinct claims against the two parties, which meant there would be an inherent conflict between them.