Put simply, the duty to mitigate is the responsibility of the plaintiff or injured person to minimize related costs. The duty is assessed on the reasonableness of the plaintiff’s actions. If a court finds that a plaintiff did not reasonably try to meet this duty it may refuse to award the plaintiff further compensation.
A recent decision of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice brings some clarity to the world of technology-enabled personal care.
For many Canadians summer is an opportunity to bring out the BBQ or sit around a campfire and enjoy being outdoors. On other special evenings during the summer, friends and family may get together to watch or set off fireworks. These events are fun and meaningful, but they also present significant burn and scalding risks for everyone involved.
Expert assessments by medical and health practitioners play an important role in personal injury law. However, it is not unusual for expert assessments to differ or conflict on certain points. In a recent case, the Ontario Superior Court addressed the issue of how to treat conflicting expert assessments.
A settlement represents one possible resolution to a legal dispute. In personal injury law, a settlement involves the claimant accepting a final damages sum in compensation for their injuries. Settlements are “full and final”, meaning there cannot be any future requests for any more compensation relating to the same claim.
Under the Liquor Licence Act, it is illegal for a commercial host to serve any person who is, or appears to be intoxicated. All for-profit liquor establishments like bars, taverns, clubs, restaurants are commercial hosts under the definition. A legal responsibility is also owed by the commercial host to any person who is reasonably expected to be harmed by the intoxicated patron. This includes the patron themselves, as well as any third parties they could be in contact with.
Every person has a legal duty to prevent unreasonable injury to themselves. [i] This becomes an issue in personal injury cases where it is shown that the injured party is themselves partially responsible. In such instances, courts apply the principle of contributory negligence to apportion damages between the parties – the injured party included – whom contributed to the injury. The effect of a finding of contributory negligence for the injured party would be to reduce the total compensation they would otherwise be entitled to, by that percentage.
A government amendment to the Statutory Accidents Benefits Schedule (SABS) came into effect on February 1, 2014. The amendment, titled as OR 347/13, made three amendments to the previous version of the regulations. The overall effect of the changes was to make it more difficult for injured plaintiffs to receive compensation in certain circumstances.
Among the many classes of damages injured persons can claim for, one is for any pain and suffering which may follow from an injury. Any person suing under this damage heading should be aware that a cap exists as to the maximum amount that a court may grant in their favour.
Winning a settlement may not be the end of the personal injury claim. You will have to decide how you would like to receive your settlement. With smaller claims, it may be best to get the money in one lump sum payment. However, as the compensation amount increases, a lawyer may urge you to look at a structured settlement that will benefit you for years to come. How do you decide which payment is best for your case? Allow your personal injury lawyer to walk you through the process.
Each personal injury case is unique, and requires dedication, professionalism, expertise and a personal, hands-on approach. If you have suffered injury due to the negligence of others or are being denied disability benefits, Tony Lafazanis will guide you through every step of the legal process, and ensure you receive the compensation to which you are entitled.
Contact Tony Lafazanis today for a free consultation, or fill out our client form.
416 979 1770
1 888 979 1770
tony@tonylafazanis.com
