Subscribe to the ICBC Law Blog 
Subscribe via Email 
Visit my Linked In profile 
Follow me on Twitter 
Visit my JDSupra profile 
Visit my Facebook Business page 
Free Video Consultations via SKYPE
Media Requests
Client Satisfaction Survey
A Positive Tort Reform in the Works? Nova Scotia and the Minor Injury Cap
Tort reform generally refers to limiting the rights of those injured through the carelessness of others to the beneift of insurance company profits. Â To this end Alberta and Nova Scotia enacted laws over the last several years artificially capping the compensation certain injured people can claim for non-pecuniniary damages (money for pain and suffering and loss of enjoyment of life).
These laws have been the subject of various court challenges and in 2009 the Alberta Court of Appeal found that Province’s Soft Tissue Injury Cap was constitutional and around the same time Nova Scotia’s Court of Appeal concluded that their ‘minor injury claims’ cap was also valid.
It’s against this background that I read a surprisingly refreshing headline today at The Lawyers Weekly. Â The Nova Scotia government is considering abolishing their “minor injury cap” which limits non-pecuniary damages in that Province for certain injuries to $2,500. Â Â One of the problems with the law is that many serious injuries such as broken bones and chronic soft tissue injuries could be considred ‘minor’ given the wording of the law.
The Lawyers Weekly reports that the Premier of Nova Scotia claims that the cap ‘is preventing people who have been seriously injured from pursuing compensation and will not survive in its present form‘.  I could not have summarized the unfairness of these laws better than the Premier himself did when he stated that “Insurance is a product designed to protect people.  If you exclude people from protection…then by definition you’re not delivering the product that has been paid for“.
Nova Scotia is apparently seeking public input on the best way to revise this 6 year old law.  The insurers who proffited under this law will likely rally against this change.  For this reason those interested in seeing this law overturned and having the rights of those injured throught he fault of others restored should make sure their voices are heard.  You can voice your support for this positive change by contacting the Government at the following address:
The Office of the Superintendent of Insurance
PO Box 2271
4th Floor
Provincial Finance Building
1723 Hollis Street
Halifax, NS B3J 3C8
You can click here to read the full story at The Lawyers Weekly.
Tags: hartling v. the attorney general of nova scotia, Limits on Negligence Victims Rights, Minor Injury Regulation, morrow v. zhang, Nova Scotia Minor Injury Cap, Soft Tissue Injury Caps, Tort Reform
This site is created by MacIsaac & Company, a British Columbia Personal Injury Lawfirm. This website is not affiliated in any way with the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia (ICBC).This web site is made possible through funding provided by the British Columbia law firm MacIsaac and Company. bc-injury-law.com is designed to empower individuals to better understand their ICBC Claim and the process involved in dealing with ICBC. This web site is offered for information only and is not claim-specific legal advice. Use of the site and sending or receiving information through it does not establish a solicitor / client relationship. Links to and from this website do not state or imply a relationship between MacIsaac and Company and the linked entity.
February 11th, 2010 at 10:11 pm
[…] fewer protections with compensation restrictions such as ‘no-fault‘ laws or ‘soft-tissue injury caps‘ on […]
February 13th, 2010 at 12:22 am
[…] of the reasons why Plaintiffs try to bring their lawsuits in BC versus Alberta is the fact that British Columbia has greater rights in place for those injured at the hands of others.  However, cases such as this one demonstrate that it is no easy task to establish jurisdiciton […]
February 23rd, 2010 at 11:16 am
May I ask, has the Nova Scotia and the Minor Injury Cap ( soft tissue damage) been lifted.. I am currently going though a insurer, about the car accident i was in January 2010.. (rear ended ,and pushed off the road into a 12 ft ditch) by a careless driver.. I heard that this “cap” might be lifted.. So I am curious to see if it was.. The insurer of the other driver that is to blame for this accident ,says that i may settle , now after only 1 month after the accident. Not sure if they are intitling me to the whole $2,500.00 or less ??? I have not yet called they back yet .. I am currently see a physio therpyist 2 times a week and still will have to for a while… If you could may you let me know if or when this “cap” will be lifted?? thank- you so much..
February 23rd, 2010 at 10:21 pm
Julie, thank you for your inquiry.
My understanding is that this cap is in the process of being lifted but the final changes to this law have not yet been finalized.
Being in BC I don’t have my finger on the pulse of this issue. I would suggest you contact a member of the Atlantic Provinces Trial Lawyers Association as their efforts have been key in the upcoming changes to this unfair cap. Their website can be found at the following link:
http://www.aptla.ca/AP/
I am confident one of their members will be able to assist you.
Yours truly,
Erik Magraken
June 15th, 2010 at 11:00 am
[…] As I recently posted, while Nova Scotia has recently taken steps to remove their long-standing artificial caps on pain and suffering awards for so called ‘minor injuries‘, Ontario seems to be moving in the opposite direction. […]
April 19th, 2011 at 10:15 pm
[…] oriented, however, one issue I like to keep my eye on is so-called tort ‘reform’.  As previously discussed, tort reform generally refers to limiting the rights of those injured through the carelessness of […]
October 25th, 2011 at 7:03 am
[…] Just because something can be done, however, does not mean it should be. Â After years of reduced compensation rights to the benefit of insurance company profits Nova Scotia realized that stripping accident injury victims of their rights was a poor move. […]