A man has recently been ordered to pay a total of $80,000 in car accident claim damages to a pair of personal injury victims who were seriously hurt in a car accident in 1992. He’s been warned by the judges from the Court of the Queen’s Bench in Alberta that he is unable to defend himself against the allegations or to reverse their validity in anyway. He must pay out the $80,000 for the injuries noted in the car accident claim writ. The offending driver, Maurice Riendeau, who was responsible for the car accident which happened in 1992, caused serious personal injuries to Arlene Helen Zawaski and Shawn Bruce McNamara. The latter claimant was riding as a passenger in the former claimant’s car when the accident took place.

The two victims of the car accident launched a car accident claim against the offending driver who was later noted as being in default. The offending driver did not defend himself against the claim-serving notice and he was noted in default in personal injury action which arose from his negligent driving in the September 1992 car accident. Due to the lack of response, the administrator consented to and paid the judgements which were entered against the offending driver, seeing $35,159 paid out to Zawaski and $44,888 going to McNamara.
an image showing a crashed car similar to the one in this car accident claim storyThe administrator later went on to file renewal actions with a view to recoup the payments invoiced for the personal injury judgements, an action which was prompted by Riendeau filing a request to win back the $500 payment which he made for court costs when the car accident claim was settled in 2006-2007. Statements of defence against the car accident claim judgements were filed by the offender, making counter-claims against the administrator. His requests were dismissed by the administrator after he sought summary judgements on the case. The requests were dismissed on the basis that it was too late to reverse and the court’s judgement on the car accident claim cases had already been finalised. The judges at the Court of the Queen’s Bench in Albert were in full support of the administrator in this matter.

Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench Justice D.R.G. Thomas stated for the court that they were entirely satisfied that the “circumstances of this particular case warrant the application of the doctrine of res judicata [a legal term referring to a matter already adjudicated],” He went on to state that “further, there is evidence that the amount of $500 was paid by Riendeau on the Zawaski judgement on Mar. 21, 2006. That is evidence that he recognized and accepted the validity of the Zawaski and McNamara judgements. He is now estopped [prevented] from challenging their validity on the basis of this one payment, notwithstanding his claim that he had to make the payment to renew his Alberta driver’s licence.”

Jim Loxley is a Director at personal injury compensation claim specialist, My Compensation. More information on compensation claims of all types can be found on the My Compensation website.

{ 0 comments }

The following is a guest law blog post regarding the Conservative Government and Canada’s Pardon Program.

When Stephen Harper obtained a majority government those working in the pardon service business anticipated changes to the existing legislature. The Conservatives promised to get tough on crime and this included a reworking of Canada’s pardon program, which crime hawks had said was too lenient and allowed criminal records to be sealed far too easily. A couple of high profile cases followed by negative media attention were all that was needed to generate public outrage at Canada’s pardon program.

Never mind that 96% of the people pardoned under this program have never committed another crime. Never mind that pardons get people back to work, which in turn prevents further criminal activity. Never mind how difficult it is to find work with a criminal record. According to the Conservative government, Canada’s pardon system was broken.

Now that Bill C23B, an act that eliminates pardons for serious offenders, has passed as a part of the Conservatives omnibus crime bill, just how much of Canada’s pardon program really changed?

The most significant measure is that the waiting periods required before a person becomes eligible were increased. An offender used to become eligible for a pardon three years or five years after the date his or her sentence was completed. That means that all fines are paid, probation completed, jail time served, and so on. Three years was applied to summary convictions and five years for indictable convictions (sexual offences and serious personal injury offences required a ten-year waiting period).  Now offenders must wait five and ten years respectively, a significant increase.

Some people are now forever disqualified from the pardon program. For example it is now impossible for anyone with a sexual offence involving a minor to ever be eligible for a pardon.  Another measure that would permanently eliminate pardons for certain offenders is the “three strikes rule.” Anyone convicted of more than three indictable offences, each of which was punishable by more than two years in jail would forever be ineligible for a pardon. This can result from a single arrest with four two-year terms being served concurrently. A single mistake could get you a criminal record for life.

Finally, one of the least significant measures contained in the bill renamed the term “pardon” to “record suspension.” The Conservatives thought this was necessary because “it is not in the business of forgiving criminals,” as one MP put it. However, if you remain eligible for a record suspension it is the exact same thing as a pardon.

Although the act to eliminate pardons had more bark than bite it did contain some changes that are going to make it difficult, if not impossible, for some offenders to ever get back on the right track. Denying people access to a basic Canadian lifestyle—one where employment, travel and autonomy are all possible—seems altogether flawed. As a country that prides itself on opportunity, these changes feel inconsistent with the broader values Canada aims to uphold.

Consider again that 96% of the people who have been granted a pardon never re-offend. The vast majority is only interested in living a law abiding life and being given the same opportunities to pursue a rewarding career. It is hard to understand what these measures were supposed to accomplish.

If you have a criminal record, contact a pardon specialist at the National Pardon Centre. We offer free consultation services and can easily help you determine if you remain eligible for a Canadian pardon.

{ 0 comments }

Welcome to CanadianBlawg: A Canadian Law Blog

May 26, 2012

Welcome to CanadianBlawg: CanadianLaw 2.0 This is a law blog, otherwise known as a “blawg”, designed to contribute to Canadian law. It is designed specifically for businesses, law firms, lawyers and law students looking to know more about the laws of Canada. As noted from Wikipedia, the foundation of the legal system of Canada comes [...]

Read the full article →