WSIB to Re-examine Rejected Claims from Former General Electric Employees Between 1945 and 2000, General Electric’s factory in Peterborough was the epicenter for many work-related illnesses among employees and retirees, a study of chemical exposures at the plant reveals. This however, is nothing new. GE’s plant workers built household appliances, diesel locomotive engines, and fuel cells for nuclear reactors. The workers were exposed to more than 3,000 toxic chemicals in the process, some of which include 40 to be cancer causing, at levels that were hundreds of times higher than what is now considered safe. Workers were exposed to these chemicals at levels hundreds of times higher than what is now considered safe, says the report. Lead was another huge component that circulated the plant. Workers used about 40,000 lbs. in a week to produce PVC pellets until the 1980s, and also experience daily exposure to: Solvents Welding Fumes Epoxy Resins PCBs Beryllium Uranium Occupational disease claims that were previously denied by Ontario’s Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (the “WSIB”) will now review the more than 250 claims. This will also include a review of the cancer and non-cancer related claims, with updated research on chemical exposure levels and illnesses related to them, and will also look at claims to allow widows, widowers and children of former workers who died without realizing it may have been linked to a workplace illness. The plant has announced however, that it will be shutting down after 125 years, which will leave 350 employees without work. They say that it is not closing due to the illness claims, but due to changing markets. The claimants won’t rest until they have money in their pockets, even though the money may not help some of them beat their battles with cancer or disease, they will be able to live knowing that the employer they worked years for, recognizes they are entitled to something. At Devry Smith Frank LLP we provide a full range of services to suit any need. If you are seeking information or representation for a similar situation, please contact the lawyers of our Health and Safety and Employment Law Teams today. If you require more information please call us today at 416-449-1400. By: Nicolas Di Nardo “This article is intended to inform. Its content does not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon by readers as such. If you require legal assistance, please see a lawyer. Each case is unique and a lawyer with good training and sound judgment can provide you with advice tailored to your specific situation and needs.” By Fauzan SiddiquiBlog, Employment LawSeptember 20, 2017June 18, 2020
3-Point Turns are U-Turns, Says Police and Courts Many drivers know the difference between a U-turn and a 3-point turn, but it turns out that each have some similarities. A man from Brampton, Michael Robinson, executed a three-point turn on Sunforest Drive when he was pulled over by a Peel Regional Officer for disobeying a “No U-turn” sign, and was given a ticket. This raises the question, Is a three-point turn also a U-turn? The police and the courts say, yes. The Ontario Highway Traffic Act intentionally does not define a U-turn, in order to allow “liberal interpretation of your behaviour. If it’s too clearly defined, people can then create a conduct that may not fit the definition and get off free,” says Jordan Donich, a traffic lawyer. He goes on to say that the driver’s intent to turn around is more important than the manoeuvre itself, so even though a fundamental difference between a three-point turn and a U-turn is that one involves three separate actions compared to a single one, it is not relevant to the overall infraction that occurred. Therefore, a three-point turn for the purposes of the Ontario Highway Traffic Act is not legally distinct from a U-turn, as it is the fact that the vehicle was going in the opposite direction that is the main focus. Section 143 of the Highway Traffic Act states that a U-turn is a turn “so as to proceed in the opposite direction,” which was what led to Robinson’s charge. On the 18th of August he was found guilty of disobeying a sign and handed demerit points. The officer that testified said that he did a U-turn because he didn’t fully leave the roadway during the three-point turn, which the courts agreed with, given the previous explanation of the interpretation of the Highway Traffic Act. Robinson is still upset with the decision and would’ve continued to fight, but doesn’t possess the time or funds to continue on. If you require representation please contact the lawyers of Devry Smith Frank LLP at 416-449-1400 . By: Nicolas Di Nardo “This article is intended to inform and entertain. Its content does not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon by readers as such. If you require legal assistance, please see a lawyer. Each case is unique and a lawyer with good training and sound judgment can provide you with advice tailored to your specific situation and needs.” By Fauzan SiddiquiBlogSeptember 14, 2017June 18, 2020
Is Ontario Really the Litigation Capital of Canada? It is a commonly held belief that Ontario is the litigation capital of Canada. With more lawyers than any other province, a greater population and far larger economy, this idea is intuitive and easy to believe. However, the question remains; are individuals and corporations located in Ontario more likely to litigate than those located elsewhere? With no immediate answer at hand aside from anecdotes and conjectures, I decided to investigate. In order to analyze how much litigation is taking place in Canada, I looked at the number of Court decisions there are from Canlii for each province from January 1st, 2014 to December 31, 2016. I chose those years to standardize the input as some jurisdictions do not have data from prior to 2014, while others have not entered decisions for 2017 yet. The data is imperfect as it includes some Court decisions for matters such as cost motions and other non-trial decisions, but for the most part, it provides an accurate picture of the amount of litigation taking place in Canada. This number includes both civil and criminal court cases. Province Court decisions GDP Population Ontario 19,249 763,276,000,000 13,983,000 British Columbia 8,954 249,981,000,000 4,751,600 Alberta 4,349 326,433,000,000 4,252,900 Saskatchewan 2,235 79,415,000,000 1,150,600 Nova Scotia 1,879 40,225,000,000 949,500 Newfoundland 1,106 30,100,000,000 530,100 Manitoba 1,080 65,862,000,000 1,318,100 New Brunswick 819 33,052,000,000 756,800 Yukon 388 2,710,000,000 37,500 Northwest Territories 270 4,828,000,000 44,500 Prince Edward Island 169 6,186,000,000 148,600 Nunavut 114 2,447,000,000 37,100 The numbers are hardly surprising here, the more populous and wealthy a Province is, the more court decisions there are. This is supported by the data indicating that 98.6% of the variation in court decisions per province can be explained by population differences alone. However, after adjusting for population size, the density of a province still provides some information on how litigious the province is. Adjusted for population size, 78% of the variation in court cases across Canada is explained by a province’s population density. The smaller provinces have slightly more court decisions per capita than larger Provinces do. Province Court decisions per 10,000 people Manitoba 8.19 Alberta 10.23 New Brunswick 10.82 Prince Edward Island 11.37 Ontario 13.77 British Columbia 18.84 Saskatchewan 19.42 Nova Scotia 19.79 Newfoundland 20.86 Nunavut 30.73 Northwest Territories 60.67 Yukon 103.47 I then looked to see what other factors might influence the amount of litigation taking place in a province. Aside from population size, both crime and economic activity seem to be good indicators of litigation. The more economic activity there is in a Province, the more money there is to litigate over. Similarly, the higher the crime rate in a province, the more criminal trials there should be. To try and discern how these variables interacted with each other, I ran a multivariate regression on the number of court decisions per province, using population size, economic data, and crime rates as the variables. Together, these factors explain 61% of the variation in the number of court decisions per province. Ontario and Nova Scotia have more court decisions than the model predicts, while Alberta, Manitoba and Saskatchewan have far less. This means that Ontario and Nova Scotia are slightly more litigations than their population size, economic activity and crime rates suggest, while Alberta, Manitoba and Saskatchewan have less legal activity. After investigating the data, it seems as if Ontario has slightly more litigation than the rest of Canada. However, the effect is minor, and the level of litigation remains similar throughout the country. If you are in need of any legal services or advice, please contact Devry Smith Frank LLP at 416-449-1400, or visit our website today. “This article is intended to inform and entertain. Its content does not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon by readers as such. If you require legal assistance, please see a lawyer. Each case is unique and a lawyer with good training and sound judgment can provide you with advice tailored to your specific situation and needs.” By Fauzan SiddiquiBlog, LitigationFebruary 13, 2017June 18, 2020