Madill v. Chu, supra, as I understand it, stands for the proposition that the amount of reduction of payments under the plan for WSIB benefits which the appellant is "entitled to receive" is not the amount of WSIB benefits that the appellant receives but the amount of such benefits that the appellant could have received had he exercised his entitlement for them. In this case, the amount by which the monthly benefit payable to the [page603] employee is reduced "by any payment to which the disabled Employee is entitled for that month" refers to the amount of WSIB benefits to which the appellant would have been entitled had he not elected to proceed with his civil action. This interpretation gives effect to the observation of Ritchie J. in Madill v. Chu, at p. 410 S.C.R., that an insurer's obligation under the policy should not be "varied adversely to its interest after the happening of the event insured against by the independent act of the insured".
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.