wintered in Florida and had some existing medical problems. He could well anticipate needing to have medical services in Florida for which he would need OHIP coverage. Most travel insurance policies required that a person be covered by a provincial plan to be valid. Finally, a date was set for a hearing before the Court − August 25. Because of the virus, the hearing would be held remotely. Witnesses do not appear before the Divisional Court; the proceedings are held on the basis of affidavits and legal argument. To bolster the case, Scott Fairley consulted Michael MacKenzie, executive director of the CSA, and Evan Rachkovsky, director of research. They produced evidence that the Federal Government had expressed concern to the Ontario government on several occasions as to the proposed change in OHIP coverage, and that the Ontario government had not responded in any way. Other persons were consulted, including Ross Quigley of Medipac Insurance, as to the effect on premiums for travel insurance, and Dr. Robert MacMillan as to OHIP history. Affidavits were prepared for various persons including Bob Slack and Dr. MacMillan. The hearing took place on August 25 from 10:00 a.m. to about 4:30 p.m. Three Supreme Court judges, H. Sachs, Backhouse and Pattillo, had been assigned to hear the case. Submission was made for CSA/Slack by Scott Fairley, and the government lawyers presented their case, including reference to the two previous cases which had been dismissed. For me, there was a glimmer of hope when Justice Sachs asked the government lawyer if his argument was to the effect that the Court had no jurisdiction to interfere with the government action. He said that was his position. After the hearing, the Court reserved its decision. When the decision was announced on September 23, CSA/Slack had won. The Court ruled that the basis of the two previous cases (premature) was answered as Ontario had not answered the Federal letters. In effect, this Court agreed with the O’Leary dissent in the 1995 case, and ruled that the actions of the Ontario government were contrary to Ontario law. Thus, the OHIP coverage was reinstated to where it had been prior to January 1, 2020. The decision was unanimous. To appeal a Divisional Court decision, permission must be obtained from the Court of Appeal. To our dismay, the government lawyers served notice that they were applying for such permission. We did not want more court action. However, the next step would be to present argument as to why permission should not be granted. On the 13th of November, Scott Fairley received notice that the application was being withdrawn. The case was over and the judgment was firm. Thank you to readers who are members of the Canadian Snowbird Association. Your membership enabled the CSA to bring this action on behalf of the residents of Ontario. If you are not a member, join the CSA − we need your help in protecting the rights of travellers. We were able to take action and we WON. By the way, who am I? I have been General Counsel of the CSA since its inception, for more than 27 years. I have two law degrees, one from Osgoode Hall and one from the University of Detroit. I am a member of the Ontario Bar and the Florida Bar, and have practised law for more than 50 years. I founded two law firms, one in Kitchener/Waterloo with a branch in Kincardine, and one in Florida. I am a recipient of the Queen’s Diamond Jubilee Medal awarded in 2012. I am married with four children, one a lawyer in St. Petersburg, Florida. I am a dual citizen, Canada and the U.S. One can read the full 21-page judgment on the Canadian Snowbird Association website at www.snowbirds.org. Wallace J. Weylie General Counsel Addendum: As our action was successful, CSA/Slack was entitled to a payment from the Ontario Government as set by the Divisional Court. This has now been awarded at $ 50,000. CSANews | SPRING 2021 | 13 CSAUpdate
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MzMzNzMx