York Accountability | Joint Accountability | Duty to Christa and Other Alumni
Reason for this Website
This website is the initiative and endeavor of Christa and her husband, as Christa has every right to express her thoughts, observations, experiences, opinions, and intentions in connection with her horrific ordeal and suffering which TD, Security National and York University contributed to due to their actions (pre-Sept/07).
TD and Security National’s conduct in connection with Christa’s experience needs to be exposed to Alumni and the general public in order for them to be accountable for their actions, and for the purposes of raising awareness in her fellow alumni about the appalling handling of Christa’s file. This is particularly so, in the event other Alumni choose to come forward with similar experiences. Perhaps this will serve as a strong incentive for TD and Security National to be more accountable for their conduct, to take Christa’s case (and potentially that of other alumni) more seriously, and to treat her file and claim with the fairness it deserves.
Christa believes it is critical that other illustrious York Alumni and current York students be made aware of what they "may possibly" have to look forward to by becoming insured with TD and Security National. This is particularly so, given the fact that these parties are not legally obligated to follow decisions made during the Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) process, which is the main means of disputing grievances made by insured persons (as these decisions are not legally binding).
Christa’s Horrific Experience with TD and Security National
TD and Security National’s failure to adjust Christa’s claim in a fair and appropriate manner prior to September 25th, 2007 ("pre-Sept/07") is inexcusable. It became very apparent early on that Christa has had nothing but difficulty with TD and Security National (particularly insofar as the acknowledgement of her acquired brain injury was concerned). The injuries she sustained arising from the two MVAs are serious, and have had a profound effect on her life, her husband’s life, and that of her twin babies. It can be argued that the blatant disregard of TD and Security National to adjust Christa’s file in a fair manner (pre-Sept/07) is grounds for punitive damages at the very least. Accordingly, the consequences of the actions of these parties as far as their liability for damages sustained by Christa is concerned will be significant and far-reaching. This is particularly so, given that Christa will be pursuing legal action to ensure that these parties are all held accountable for their actions.
Christa intends to pursue legal action for damages that she sustained as a result of TD and York’s negligence and/or breech of duty in the standard of care required by law (directly by TD & Security National, and indirectly by York). In addition, Christa intends to hold liable all parties with exposure in this matter that were involved in creating, facilitating, promoting, soliciting, endorsing and/or advertising TD’s services on the York University alumni website and other York University literature.
How Low Would an Insurer's Independent Medical Assessment Go?
Read and compare these 2 reports to decide for yourself.
After reading the two reports (in PDF format) shown above, do you believe:
- that there has been a breach of the Privacy Act committed by the therapist, Linda Clements for disclosing the name and/or medical information of another patient (other than Christa) who is noted in the report labeled REPORT 1? Yes or No
- that disciplinary measures should be taken against the therapist, Linda Clements for her improper disclosure of information pertaining to another patient (other than Christa)? Yes or No
- that the validity of Linda Clement's report & her credibility should render her report invalid and/or without merit? Yes or No
CLICK HERE TO SUBMIT YOUR OPINION OF THESE 3 QUESTIONS.
Examples of Deceptive Conduct
It is Christa’s contention that TD and Security National have gone through excessive measures to diminish her injuries and thereby her Statutory Accident Benefits (SABs). This has included retaining various "healthcare professionals" to perform "independent medical assessments" (referred to as IEs) on Christa despite the fact that their experience was in the wrong discipline, and that they had little or no experience with traumatic brain injuries. A reasonable person would agree that such conduct by TD and Security National is underhanded as it appears to be driven by the intention to diminish the true nature and scope of Christa’s injuries for the purpose of absolving themselves of their professional duty. In the absence of such deceptive conduct, Christa would otherwise have benefited from a fair and proper assessment of her injuries by truly independent, qualified, experienced, and competent healthcare professionals.
It would be beneficial to site some of the numerous examples of deceptive conduct, which have been demonstrated by TD and Security National. Prior to Christa’s husband’s letter dated September, 25th, 2007 to York, TD and Security National, which threatened to expose their underhanded and deceitful conduct, both TD and Security National neglected, refused and/or failed to pay for various outstanding accident benefits and expenses owed to Christa amounting to approximately $10,000.00, which were submitted approximately one year earlier. This sum included out-of-pocket expenses incurred by Christa for the payment of medical and assistive devices, and other items recommended and prescribed by numerous medical professionals. In view of the fact that TD and Security National were fully aware that Christa was unable to work due to her injuries and therefore had no income, clearly demonstrates their careless disregard in refusing and/or failing to reimburse her for these costs (until after they received her husband’s September 2007 letter). In addition, their awareness of the fact that Christa is a mother of twin toddlers, and that withholding her outstanding benefits and expenses would invariably cause her financial hardship if she was unable to recover these costs from TD is indicative of TD’s careless disregard and underhanded antics.
To add to this, TD and Security National shamelessly and routinely claimed that they received only certain select correspondence from the offices of Christa’s lawyer (pre-Sept/07). Conveniently, this "missing correspondence" exclusively pertained to documentation forwarded to them, which advised them of outstanding benefits and expenses requiring reimbursement to Christa. On numerous occasions, TD denied receiving any other documentation forwarded by Christa’s lawyer’s office, which pertained to anything that would require them to fulfill their duty as insurer insofar as payment was warranted. It is terribly ironic that Christa’s lawyer’s office has never encountered situations where their mailings were sent out but apparently not received because they allegedly disappeared on a routine basis. Clearly, the argument that only documentation of this nature "mysteriously disappeared" is nothing short of blatantly deceptive, and underhanded conduct that should not go unpunished. TD and Security National also previously failed to acknowledge documentation from Christa’s lawyer’s office containing objective findings about Christa’s injuries, which were made by her treating physicians and healthcare professionals respecting her brain injury. This is not only indicative of deceitful and unfair conduct, but it is insulting and appalling to Christa, their insured.
Following the mediation of this matter, which occurred on June 15, 2007, TD and Security National failed to obeyed by the decisions and undertakings, which favoured Christa. During this mediation, a Security National representative agreed to pay outstanding amounts to date and resolve several issues at hand, but this did not happen until after Christa’s husband threatened to expose their misconduct in his letter of September 2007.
It would be apparent to any reasonable person who looked at the sheer facts respecting the handling of Christa's file and claim (pre-Sept/07), that TD and Security National were deceitful and unfair in their handling of Christa’s case. Their track record of evading accountability in fulfilling their duty to Christa speaks volumes about TD and Security National. This is particularly disgraceful given the extent to which they’ve gone to do so. What TD failed to realize is that their deceitful conduct is going to be viewed and judged by the general public, which will ensure that TD becomes exposed for such underhandedness. After all, it is alumni members and the general public that TD and Security National have to answer to.
TD’s unfair conduct in the handling of Christa’s case is so pervasive that it would astound any reasonable person. According to a letter dated September 5, 2007 from TD, TD advised Christa’s lawyer’s office that, "To date, we have not received a copy of the mediator’s report." Now let’s say that for the sake of argument that TD did not receive the mediator’s report which outlines the end result of the mediation that took place. Given the fact that the mediation took place on June 15th, 2007 at 10:00am via telephone conference at which time a TD representative participated, one would expect that she would have taken notes respecting TD and Security National’s undertakings and the outcome of the mediation. Essentially, TD had more than amble time to request the said mediator’s report (if in fact they didn’t have it). More particularly, TD had approximately three months to request same, but failed to do so. One could argue that TD’s "alleged desire to obtain the said report" would be contingent upon the assumption that TD in fact wanted to obtain a copy of same, and was not merely mentioning it as a lame excuse to evade dealing with the issues that TD undertook to resolve. Such cat and mouse games played by TD and its representatives are not becoming of an insurance company that is acting in good faith. This is not the type of substandard quality of service that Christa ever expected of TD. One could reasonably argue that TD’s handling of Christa’s case can be best described as "nothing short of shoddy quality of service". What is appalling is that TD’s advertisement on the York Alumni website constitutes false and misleading advertising to York Alumni by promising exceptional level of client care, valued benefits, personalized client care and superior claims service to Alumni. This is particularly so in that as far as Christa is concerned, TD never provided and/or fulfilled these "alleged" offerings and benefits to her (pre-Sept/07).
Based on TD and Security National’s callous and deceitful conduct throughout their handling of Christa’s file (pre-Sept/07), and her observations and knowledge of TD's failure to deal with her claim in a fair and just manner, one would agree that their behaviour needs to be exposed in order for them to be held accountable for their conduct. By reading and learning about what happened to Christa in her dealings with TD and Security National, it would become apparent to any reasonable person that her insurer blatantly took advantage of their position of power. Consequently, TD’s conduct was to the detriment of Christa’s recovery. This is so because TD's conduct prior to September 25, 2007 compromised the integrity of the manner in which Christa’s claim was handled.
Numerous letters were written by the law firm representing Christa to TD and Security National with respect to concerns about the handling of Christa’s case. It was not until TD’s receipt of Christa’s husband’s letter dated September 25, 2007 that Christa received an acknowledgment from TD and Security National that they intended to review the entire file and would be addressing the concerns in question. However prior to receiving Sandro’s September 2007 letter, TD and Security National wrote to Christa’s lawyer’s office and took the position that alleged they had already been acting in a fair and just manner. There is a simple catch phrase that best describes such antics employed by TD. The appropriate phrase is "cat and mouse games". In light of this, it is evident that one needs to look to the law to determine what is construed as an unfair or deceptive act or practice in order to view TD’s handling of Christa’s file objectively. According to the Unfair and Deceptive Practices Act 5.1, an unfair or deceptive act or practice is defined as the failure or refusal of an insurer without reasonable cause to pay a claim for goods or services. In Christa’s case, she submitted various benefits and expenses (ie. medical and assistive devices) for payment to TD, which amounted to a significant sum of money, however it was not until September 2007 (when TD received her husband’s letter) that TD and Security National made efforts to address payment for these expenses. The unacceptable thing about this is that TD did not make efforts to pay this sum until after approximately one year from the date that these costs were submitted to TD. Clearly, the facts speak for themselves!
TD and Security National made extensive efforts to deny and/or prolong the approval of some medical and rehabilitation treatment for Christa that were already recommended by reputable medical professionals (pre-Sept/07). The consequence of TD’s actions in this regard caused Christa’s injuries to be aggravated and caused her condition to spiral downward. Accordingly, TD and Security National’s conduct (pre-Sept/07) not only caused some of Christa’s injuries to worsen, but it impeded her efforts to stabilize or improve these injuries, which had arisen from her 2 MVAs.
A Closer Look at York University’s Accountability
York University and its Alumni Association have a fiduciary duty to protect the best interest of distinguished York graduates such as Christa. In view of this, Christa and her husband are calling into question the motive for York University to enter into a business relationship with TD, and the benefit it receives from doing so. More particularly, Christa and her husband are convinced based on the events that stemmed from York University’s solicitation of business for TD via false and/or misleading advertising, which Christa fully relied on that financial gain must have been instrumental in York’s decision to create a partnership with TD. Incidentally, the same can be argued about TD’s motive for partnering with York University. What TD and York failed to consider is that benefiting financially when it is at the expense of York Alumni constitutes a conflict of interest, breach of duty to insured persons, and negligence when the services promised are as "shoddy" as those provided to Christa.
Given the fact that York University is an esteemed academic institution, it is preposterous that it has undertaken to solicit business for TD. One can argue that York University may be using its status as a high profile academic institution, and its trust-based relationships with its former students to persuade them that this trust relationship should be extended to TD, since York endorses their services.
A reasonable person would agree that York University has a duty and responsibility to all York Alumni members to ensure that it refers them to an insurance broker and/or insurance company that meets the highest standard of good business practice. Consequently, York University has significant exposure in Christa’s case because it misled her (and potentially other Alumni members) to believe that TD is a reputable company offering and delivering an exceptional level of client care, exceptional service, and many other benefits. York University refers to these benefits as "PERKS", which is nothing short of an insult to any Alumni who may have had a similar adverse experience to the one Christa had with TD. One can argue that upon learning about Christa’s experience with TD and Security National, a reasonable person would realize that the advertisement and endorsement made by York University on their Alumni website and literature undoubtedly constitutes a false and/or misleading representation of TD. According to Christa’s personal experience and dealings with TD, she is convinced that this advertisement constitutes misleading advertising, and conveys false and/or inaccurate information to York Alumni about the true nature of TD’s services. Consequently, since Christa relied heavily on the sincerity, accuracy and truth of this advertisement, she was misled about what she signed up for (in becoming insured by TD).
Accordingly, York University should be liable for damages that Christa sustained from her dealings with TD and Security National because it knew or ought to have known that TD and Security National would not deliver the benefits and quality of service detailed in the above-noted York advertisement for TD. Given the circumstances, one can even argue that York University benefited financially by referring and/or soliciting York Alumni members to sign on with TD. In view of this, Christa feels that York did not fulfill its fiduciary duty by protecting the best interest of its Alumni members since it exposed her to the likes of TD and Security National. Certainly a very many inferences can be made from this finding alone. Overall, it can be reasonably argued that York University, York Alumni Association, TD, and Security National failed to fulfill their fiduciary duty to Christa. As such, they should all be liable for damages that Christa sustained arising from the difficulties she suffered and continues to suffer by virtue of York University soliciting, endorsing and falsely misrepresenting the true nature of the quality of services offered by TD.
The Joint Accountability of York, TD & Security National
Concurrently, TD is liable for said damages by virtue of failing to adjust and manage Christa’s claim or file in a fair and efficacious manner as mandated by law, and the Ontario Insurance Act and Commission. TD clearly demonstrated a significant failure to uphold and fulfill their fiduciary duty to Christa, as the insured in this matter. The same holds true for Security National whose conduct not only demonstrated the epitome of breach of fiduciary duty, bad faith, and deceitful conduct, but also unfair conduct/practice in accordance to the rules and laws governing insurance companies. This begs the question, "Where is York University’s loyalty to its Alumni members and future graduates?" In viewing the facts of Christa’s predicament, one is forced to question whether York University is acting in the best interests of its Alumni members like Christa. A reasonable person would wonder whether York has a vested interest that conflicts with acting in the best interest of its Alumni. At the same time, upon learning about Christa’s experience one would question whether there is a conflict of interest with respect to York University consorting with TD when York has a duty to ensure that the best interest of its Alumni are protected.
So What Duty Does TD, Security National and York Have to Christa & Other Alumni…?
Defining Fiduciary Duty, 101
For your convenience, Christa’s husband has taken the liberty of outlining the definition and true essence of what fiduciary duty means. Essentially, fiduciary duty is a legal relationship between two or more parties (most commonly a "fiduciary" or "trustee" and a "principal" or "beneficiary") that in common law is arguably the most important concept within the portion of the legal system known as equity. A fiduciary duty is the highest standard of care imposed at either equity or law. A fiduciary is expected to be extremely loyal to the person to whom they owe the duty (the "principal, which essentially is Christa"): they must not put their personal interests before their duty, and must not profit from their position as a fiduciary, unless the principal consents. The fiduciary relationship is highlighted by good faith, loyalty and trust.
When a fiduciary duty is imposed, equity requires a stricter standard of behavior than the comparable tortious duty of care at common law. It is said the fiduciary has a duty not to be in a situation where personal interests and fiduciary duty conflict, a duty not to be in a situation where their fiduciary duty conflicts with another fiduciary duty, and a duty not to profit from their fiduciary position without express knowledge and consent. Simply put, a fiduciary cannot have a conflict of interest. It is expected that fiduciaries must conduct themselves "at a level higher than that trodden by the crowd."
Visitors to this website should be aware that Black's Law Dictionary describes a fiduciary relationship as "one founded on trust or confidence reposed by one person in the integrity and fidelity of another." A fiduciary has a duty to act primarily for the client's benefit in matters connected with the undertaking and not for the fiduciaries own personal interest. Scrupulous good faith and candor are always required.
Fiduciaries must always act in complete fairness and may not ever exert any influence or pressure, take selfish advantage, or deal with the client in such a way that it benefits themselves or prejudices the client. Business shrewdness, hard bargaining, and taking advantage of the forgetfulness or negligence of the client are totally prohibited by a fiduciary. Clearly, this is something that TD, Security National and York failed to consider and uphold.
What is more, fiduciaries must make fair and complete disclosure of all material facts and must employ reasonable care to avoid misleading their clients. The utmost good faith is required in all their dealings. Simply put, fiduciaries must exhibit the highest form of trust, fidelity and confidence, and are expected to act in the best interest of their clients at all times. A fiduciary must serve the client, if necessary at the cost of the fiduciary's own interests.
It is generally believed that fiduciaries perform their trades for reasons other than money and feel a sense of responsibility that goes beyond simply making a living. To paraphrase Supreme Court Justice Brandeis: "It is an occupation which is pursued largely for others and not merely for oneself. It is an occupation in which the amount of financial return is not the accepted measure of success."