One step forward or two steps back? Access to justice through the lens of auto insurance reform, 1990-2008

This dissertation is concerned with the changes to motor vehicle accident compensation since the introduction of the first Threshold/No-Fault Regime in Ontario in 1990. For the first time ever, tort rights were restricted in order to facilitate enhanced No-Fault benefits for all accident victims, regardless of fault. There have been four Threshold/No-Fault regimes in Ontario, with the first attempting to strike a reasonable, but not perfect, balance between tort and No-Fault rights. As a plaintiff personal injury lawyer, I was intrigued with the evolution of each regime, but I was disappointed with the level of compensation that the current Bill 198 system provides to innocent accident victims. As a result, I set out to complete a doctoral study that would critically examine Bill 198 in light of normative tort law principles.;The data that I used to evaluate the efficacy of the compensation system was generated by the 20 interviews that I conducted. My sample included important stakeholders in the insurance community. I conducted the interviews and extracted the data according to the Phenomenographic Model of research. This is a method used for mapping the qualitatively different ways in which people experience, conceptualize, perceive and understand various aspects of, and phenomena in, the world around them. I also applied a number of data verification mechanisms in order to validate the data generated and also to address any of my own personal preconceptions given my legal background.;Through the use of the phenomenographic method, 5 categories of deficiencies with auto accident compensation emerged from an iterative review of the data. These deficiencies were noted more in the administration and organization of No-Fault benefits, as opposed to tort compensation. The findings of this analysis also suggest the existence of a "compensation crisis" in Ontario. The changes to the system of compensation following the enactment of the first Threshold/No-Fault system in 1990 set in motion a process of a devolution in compensation. In the end, although No-Fault benefits were conceived as a step forward for all injured individuals, the entire Threshold/No-Fault system has actually resulted in all victims having to take two steps back in terms of receiving sufficient and efficient compensation. In conclusion, although this study does not definitively resolve the question of which system of compensation is optimal, it does contribute to the debate on tort reform by filling the gap in the literature concerning the efficacy of No-fault benefits. This is a small, but meaningful, piece that addresses the one-sided scholarship that critiques tort compensation. The final chapter of this dissertation includes suggestions for further research.;In the years leading up to the 1990s, a debate was raging in the scholarly literature that questioned the efficacy of using tort law to compensate accident victims. A number of tort reformists and compensation scholars argued that the tort system should be replaced with No-Fault or government sponsored systems of compensation. However, many of these reform studies woefully lacked the empirical evidence to support the idea that No-Fault benefits compensated accident victims more efficiently and sufficiently compared to tort compensation. Not only did a number of scholars fail to launch a thorough empirical investigation into the efficacy of No-Fault compensation during the academic debate, but the system has been spared a critical analysis since it was enacted. Therefore, I sought to address this gap in the literature by making a small, but meaningful, contribution to the debate by turning a critical eye to No-fault compensation.