GROUP FIGHTS CASH AWARD RULE

by James Keller

A group opposed to no-fault insurance is preparing to challenge provincial regulations that limit accident compensation, claiming the rules violate the Constitution and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The Nova Scotia Coalition Against No-Fault Insurance filed a 60-day notice Wednesday in Supreme Court in Halifax, which is required before filing a legal challenge.

The complaint stems from changes to the Insurance Act made last November that capped rewards for pain and suffering from minor accident injuries at $2,500. The limit was to make up for a 20 per cent rollback on auto insurance rates and a one-year rate freeze.

The group says regulations the Hamm government added after passing the act, which define what injuries are subject to the award cap, violate the rights of exempted accident victims.

"The way that the legislation and regulations were enacted last year, we believe it is discriminating against people with certain types of pain," Susan Hanrahan, chairwoman of the coalition, said Wednesday.

"When the act was first passed, I could live with it, but then they amended the regulation without legislation."

The limit on awards for pain and suffering applies to minor injuries. A minor injury is one that "resolves within 12 months following the accident," according to regulations drafted shortly after the act was passed.

Barry Mason, the lawyer working on the coalition's case, said the regulations' definition of when a medical condition has resolved still unfairly discriminates among different types of injuries.

Under the regulations, the cap wouldn't apply to patients with "moderately severe" chronic pain, but patients with just moderate pain couldn't claim more than the $2,500 limit, Mr. Mason said. This violates the charter right to equal treatment, he said.

The coalition also says the regulations are unconstitutional because they contravene some changes made in the Insurance Act.

Mr. Mason said in order to pass the act, the Hamm government made concessions to the Liberal party limiting the types of injuries affected by the cap. Changing that definition through regulation, which didn't require debate in the legislature, violated the "original spirit and intent of the act," he said.

Michel Samson, the Liberals' Insurance Act critic, said it is too soon to tell whether the regulations are in line with the amendments his party added to the Insurance Act.

The coalition wants last year's changes to the Insurance Act and subsequent regulations repealed.

Ron Russell, the minister responsible for the Insurance Act, hadn't seen the notice by Wednesday and said he couldn't comment on the case.

"The plan that we came forward with in regards to insurance seems to be working very well, and I'm a little surprised that someone wants to try and scuttle it," Mr. Russell said.