Counsel for the plaintiff concedes that the decision in Madill v. Chu has application to s. 7.21(a), and if that was all that was involved, clearly there would be no entitlement to the no-fault benefit now claimed. But s. 7.21(a) is expressly made subject to the provisions of subs. (b). That subsection provides: Where any workmen's compensation benefits received by an insured who is a resident of British Columbia are less than the benefits to which the insured would be entitled under this Part, the Corporation shall pay to the insured as a benefit under this Part the difference between those Workmen's Compensation benefits and the benefits payable under this Part.
Counsel for the plaintiff contends that the decision in Madill v. Chu has no application to subs. (b), as there was no similar provision in the Ontario legislation and the judgment of Mr. Justice Ritchie does not go so far as to have application to that particular subsection.
"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.