Jim Aston, Kelly Sinclair, and Jim Grieve, SCFG’s three majority shareholders, will all join Hub as part of this transaction. Jim Grieve, President of Sinclair Cockburn Financial Group will become part of Hub Ontario’s leadership team, reporting to Neil Morrison, President and Chief Executive Officer, HKMB Hub International Limited.

Established in Toronto in 1953, SCFG is a diversified insurance and financial services company with over 15,000 customers operating throughout Canada. In addition to its Toronto headquarters, SCFG also operates out of Pickering, Ontario. In 2009, SCFG was selected by the Insurance Brokers Association of Ontario as the Recipient of the Brokerage of the Year Award of Excellence. The brokerage specializes in a number of areas, most notably a professional liability unit focused on architects and engineers. Other practice areas include construction, surety, and national programs (horticultural trades, dairies, non-profits and other retail programs). The personal insurance division includes a private client practice group.

“We are thrilled to join forces with the talented team at Sinclair Cockburn Financial Group,” said Neil Morrison, President and Chief Executive Officer, HKMB Hub International Limited in a statement. “Recognized as one of the top brokerages in the region last year, SCFG is an ideal fit for Hub, offering quality products and outstanding customer service, in line with what Hub provides to our existing clients.”

One worrisome find was that nearly one in three companies with revenues of less than $49 million said they did not have the resources required to implement the conversion. As of the spring of 2010, only half of public companies were 60% of the way along the conversion project.

“The CFERF research report shows that smaller companies are facing more resource constraints and they’ll be the ones that may be more challenged to meet the impending January 2011 deadline unless they find more internal help or reach outside their organizations,” says Diane Kazarian, PwC Canada’s National IFRS Leader. The IFRS survey also indicates that some industries – for example insurance and utilities – are much further ahead than others.

The conversion to IFRS could also result in some significant changes. For example, 28% of Canadian companies anticipate a decrease in reported net income, 22% expect earnings per share to fall and 28% expect an increase in pension liabilities in the first year of adoption. CFOs’ communication with management, shareholders, analysts and other stakeholders will need to be robust during the next four months to explain these changes to financial reporting and the transition process.

“As we move into the latter stages of the conversion, companies will need to spend more time communicating the key changes,” says Michael Conway, Chief Executive and National President, FEI Canada. “The numbers, formats and notes that analysts and shareholders will see on financial statements will change and CFOs will have to make communication their priority,” he says, referring to one of the study’s findings showing that only 23% of respondents had spoken to analysts about the potential impact of IFRS on their company’s financial results.

Canadian firms that are closer to completion include larger public companies and those in rate regulated sectors. The survey shows that all respondents with annual revenues of more than $20 billion were more than 60% complete, compared to 41% in the $50-$249 million range who were more than 60% complete. One-third of private companies that will adopt IFRS had completed 60% or more of the transition. “Given that there is not a lot of time left, a number of companies may be challenged to meet the conversion date,” points out PwC’s Kazarian.

This CFERF study is the third in its series covering IFRS conversion activities in Canada. The results are based on responses from 146 senior financial executives across Canada who completed the survey in March and April of this year.

View the video here on your mobile device.

The auto insurance reforms that started in Ontario on September 1 were developed to help the insurance industry keep a control on costs, while also allowing customers more choice in their policies.

Dorianne Sauvé, Co-Chair of the Coalition Representing Health Professionals in Automobile Insurance Reform, says that it’s key for drivers to inform themselves. ILSTV asked her what sort of considerations Ontario residents need to keep in mind.

Dorianne Sauvé: I think they have to really consider that zone between being an uncomplicated minor injury and being catastrophic. That’s the piece of the policy that you’re really making the choice on, between $50,000 and $100,000 coverage for non-catastrophic injuries. You really have to sort of look at that gray zone and what the impact of a serious injury would be and whether or not making that choice on $50,000 or $100,000 is worth the cost savings. That would be one component that I would talk to consumers about.

The other thing that consumers have to understand is no matter what they purchase, there is that $3,500 cap on any minor injuries which means it doesn’t matter if you purchase $50,000 or $100,000. If you’re classified as a minor injury, you will only receive $3,500. You have to know that that means when you’re making your choice of providers and engaging in your rehabilitation, that you need to be aware that that’s a limit that’s there for you.

I think consumers have to go into it, really looking at the overall value of what they’re receiving and wondering about whether the cost savings is worth the risk should they be in an injury.

Disclosure reports show that the banks that got the most government help in late 2008 and early 2009 also invested the most to influence members of Congress, the White House, the Federal Reserve, Treasury Department and a long list of federal agencies as new rules were enacted governing Wall Street and the nation’s financial system.

“I’m not shocked that they spent that much money because I saw them every day,” said Ed Mierzwinski, consumer program director at U.S. Public Interest Research Group, who said more than 2,000 lobbyists worked on the financial reform bill.

The sweeping law signed by President Barack Obama in July topped 2,300 pages, and outlined broad rules for issues ranging from derivatives trading to the fees merchants are charged for processing credit and debit card transactions. It also covered the creation of a consumer financial protection bureau. Banks are continuing efforts to try to shape many of the new rules that are still being finalized.

The $16.32 million spent in the first half of 2010 was 26 per cent higher than the combined $12.94 million they spent in the first half of 2009.

In prior years, the spending crept up at a much slower pace: 2009′s total was about 2 per cent higher than the nearly $12.7 million spent in the first half of 2008. And that was only 3.7 per cent above the $12.25 million spent in the first half of 2007.

Leading the pack this year was JPMorgan Chase & Co., which spent $1.52 million on lobbying in the second quarter, on top of $1.51 million in the first quarter of 2010, for a total of $3.03 million, according to disclosure reports filed with the House of Representatives clerk’s office.

Citigroup Inc., the largest bank recipient of government funds during the crisis in late 2008 and early 2009, was second. The New York-based bank spend $1.47 million on lobbyists in the second quarter, after spending $1.31 million in the first quarter for a total of $2.78 million.

And Wall Street titan Goldman Sachs Group Inc. was third, with $1.58 million spent in the second quarter, on top of $1.19 million in the first quarter of 2010.

All three banks declined to comment on their lobbying spending, which went toward hiring advocates to discuss the legislation with lawmakers and regulators. Lobbying figures do not include any campaign contributions that banks or their employees might also have made.

Mierzwinski said the big win for consumers was the financial protection bureau, which banks tried to remove from the law. The financial industry was in a weakened position during the debate, however, because of public anger over the economy’s collapse and publicity over issues like Wall Street bonuses. Nevertheless, banks were rewarded for their efforts, he said. “They did manage to make changes.”

Bank of America Corp. and Wells Fargo & Co. both also spent more than $2 million in the first half of the year. Spending far less were PNC Bank, US Bancorp, Capital One Financial Corp. and Regions Financial Corp. The American Bankers Association, the main trade group for the industry, also lobbied heavily, spending $4.2 million in the first half of 2010.

Consumer advocacy groups had their own lobbyists working the Capitol’s halls during the finance reform debate as well, but their spending was dwarfed by the banks – a total of $792,000 in the first half of the year for four of the top organizations. The Center for Responsible Lending topped the list, with $335,000 spent in the first six months of the year. U.S. PIRG tallied $227,000. The Consumers Union listed $150,000 and The Consumer Federation of America spent $80,000.

Melanie Sloan, executive director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, said the heavy spending in part reflects the number of people needed to discuss issues with 535 members of Congress. One sentence in a law regulating the financial markets can have a big impact on a company’s profit, she noted, and the industry made sure they had experts on hand to discuss every aspect with lawmakers.

“We’re talking billions,” Sloan said. “So the lobbying money is the most effective money you’ll spend.”

“It’s not that I don’t think that many would have preferred a different outcome,” she added. “But I doubt that any of those banks didn’t think it was worth it to have those lobbyists.”

The one-year costs of fatal and non-fatal crash-related injuries totaled $70 billion (71 percent of total costs) for people riding in motor vehicles, such as cars and light trucks, $12 billion for motorcyclists, $10 billion for pedestrians, and $5 billion for bicyclists, the study said.

CDC researchers used 2005 data because, at the study time, it provided the most current source of national fatal and non-fatal injury and cost data from multiple sources.

“Every 10 seconds, someone in the United States is treated in an emergency department for crash-related injuries, and nearly 40,000 people die from these injuries each year. This study highlights the magnitude of the problem of crash-related injuries from a cost perspective, and the numbers are staggering,” said Dr. Grant Baldwin, director of CDC’s Division of Unintentional Injury Prevention, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control.

The study also found:

• Costs related to fatal motor vehicle-related injuries totaled $58 billion. The cost of non-fatal injuries resulting in hospitalization amounted to $28 billion, and the cost of injuries to people treated in emergency departments and released was $14 billion.
• More men were killed (70 percent) and injured (52 percent) in motor vehicle crashes than women. Injuries and deaths among men represented 74 percent ($74 billion) of all costs.
• Teens and young adults made up 28 percent of all fatal and nonfatal motor vehicle injuries and 31 percent of the costs ($31 billion). These young people represented only 14 percent of the U.S. population.
• Motorcyclists made up 6 percent of all fatalities and injuries but 12 percent of the costs, likely due to the severity of their injuries. Pedestrians, who have no protection when they are hit by vehicles and are also often severely injured, made up 5 percent of all injuries but 10 percent of total costs.

View the video here on your mobile device.

As part of the Ontario government’s measures to increase consumer choice in auto insurance, housekeeping and home maintenance expenses and caregiver benefits were made optional.

Barb Sulzenko-Laurie, IBC’s Vice President of Policy, explains how the housekeeping benefit has changed over the last few years, and what she thinks consumers should do before purchasing or renewing their auto policy.

Barb Sulzenko Laurie: Again, people need to be informed and we’re recommending that when people purchase insurance or when they renew their insurance that they talk about what their needs and potential needs are in the event of an accident causing an injury with an insurance professional, like a broker or an agent. In some cases it’s absolutely inappropriate that one would be purchasing caregiver’s assistance or attendant care assistance, depending upon one’s circumstances. Why would you be purchasing caregiver insurance if you don’t have an elderly parent that you’re taking care of or younger children that you’re taking care of? Why would you be purchasing housekeeping if the way in which you keep your house clean is not vulnerable to the temporary loss of your services as a homemaker? People have to make those choices and they should make those choices on the basis of what their own circumstances are.

Most of us, if we are injured in any other capacity other than by riding in a motor vehicle … I, for example, broke my leg in the park when I was hit by a couple of dogs that were frolicking and so I spent a month or a month and a half on a crutch. Homemaking assistance was not available. You’re injured in any other capacity and that kind of assistance is not available. The tradeoff: should everyone pay higher insurance so that some people can make use of homemaking assistance because they feel it is appropriate for them?

As has happened over the course of the last few years, is that homemaking assistance became part and parcel of every single minor injury claim. Was it necessary or was it simply taking advantage of the benefit because it was there?

I’ll show you what happened to housekeeping costs. In 2004, the average cost of a housekeeping claim was $5,200. In 2009, the average cost of a housekeeping claim was $10,200. So that was an increase of 94.4 percent.

At the same time, the frequency at which people were making these claims also increased pretty significantly. The contribution of housekeeping to the cost of your car insurance rose as a result.

View the video here on your mobile device.

There are more than nine million licensed drivers in Ontario and as of September 1, their insurance could change.

Patrick Brown, former president of the Ontario Trial Lawyers Association and a partner with law firm McLeish Orlando, says that consumers need to be aware of what their benefits will be like. He says drivers need to pay special attention to medical rehabilitation, attendant care and housekeeping benefits.

Pat Brown: Most, I’d say almost all, pretty much all of consumers have very little idea of what in fact benefits or entitlements they have through their auto insurance policies. It’s such a complicated system that it’s very difficult for any of them – a person on the street – to really understand what’s going to be made available to them if they’re hurt. When September 1 comes around and they’re being approached to renew their policies and their faced with a basic policy that essentially has got more than half the benefits reduced, they’re going to have a very limited understanding of what in fact they have and what they don’t have and what they can buy up and how that might impact on them. Certainly you would think that if the new basic policy is being sold to a consumer after September 1 and we see that now they’re getting half their medical rehabilitation benefits, they’ll get half their attendant care benefits, they no longer see any housekeeping benefits, you would think that if they choose not to buy up, that they will get a substantial reduction in premium. I mean, I think that was the government’s intent: we’ll give them choice and through the process of choosing, you’ll be able to reduce the amount of your annual premium paid. But, we’ll see whether or not that happens after September 1. You’d think that would be the case. I think we’re somewhat skeptical  as to whether or not the consumer’s actually going to get the benefit. It’s simply because – for the most part – a lot of them don’t even understand what they have now.

Patrick says that consumers need to be prepared to ask and respond to specific questions before they purchase a policy, or renew one.

Pat Brown: What’s really going to happen, if you’re a consumer and you’re listening to this, after September 1, you’re going to be contacted by your broker or by an adjuster and they’re going to give you your options of renewing your car insurance package and they’re going to ask you questions about what type of package you want. I think it’s extremely important that the consumer ask the tough questions to their insurance company to find out precisely what they’re buying in relation to what they had before. For instance, if I’m talking to my insurance company, they’re going to contact me. They’re going to say “Pat, you’re up for renewal. We have a whole new system in place. There’s a new basic policy and that’s going to cost you ‘x’ amount. You’re going to have a few options. You can buy some more insurance if you’d like.” For the consumer to completely understand what’s going on, they’re going to have to ask some very specific questions.

For instance, they could say, they should ask their insurance company “I understand the new basic policy, my medical, my rehabilitation benefits are now being reduced from $100,000 to $50,000 and in some cases even down to $3,500. Can you tell me how much I’m saving on my premium as a result of those reductions?”

Then you ask the second question: “If I want to keep the benefits I had before September 1, does my premium stay the same?” If it doesn’t, you have to ask “Why not?”

Then you ask the next question: “I understand my housekeeping benefits, my caregiver benefits are now being eliminated under his new basic policy. As a result of that, how much am I saving on the premium?” And then secondly, “If I want to keep my benefits that I had before, does my premium stay the same?”

Same question with attendant care benefits: “I understand they’re being reduced in most cases by half, from $72,000 to $36,000. How much am I saving? If I want to keep that benefit that I had before, does it stay the same?”

At the end of the whole process, write down each amount that you’re going to save or whether or not there is any saving. If, at the end of the day, you want to keep the same amount of benefits that you had before September 1, then you want to see what your premium’s changed. If your premium has gone up, you can ask why. Right? I’m buying the exact same amount of benefits I had before September 1, now I’ve asked for you to give me the same amount as afterwards, how come my premium’s gone up so much?

John Theodore Anderson said the former owner of a Utah mine owes him money, so he put a $918 billion lien on the property.

When a client of law firm of Shumway, Van and Hansen attempted to sell the property, it couldn’t due to the line. The firm filed a lawsuit against Anderson for $10,000 in damages to remove the lien. Anderson said he had a contract with the mine owner but was not paid for work he did and would not remove the lien nor accept the suit.

Now, Anderson is suing the law firm, saying lawyers Douglas Shumway, Benjamin Schramm and Michael Van fraudulently sued him with the law suit to remove the lien.

The total amount of money in the world is estimated to be about $24 trillion. (A quadrillion has 15 zeros; a trillion has just 12 zeros.)

Health services in the area northeast of Quebec City will have to be redeployed while the work is done, officials told a news conference Saturday afternoon.

The region is one of Quebec’s most earthquake-prone areas.

Among those present at the news conference was Health Minister Yves Bolduc and Parti Quebecois Leader Pauline Marois, who is the member of the legislature for the region.

A report submitted on Aug. 23 to regional health officials said the Baie-St-Paul hospital should be torn down because renovations would be too expensive and its security would not be guaranteed.

The hospital in La Malbaie will get a $3.9-million facelift, with work to strengthen the structure taking place during the next six to eight months.

Bolduc said the aim is to ensure people using the facilities get the best care possible in a safe environment.

However, he said a new hospital for Baie-St-Paul could take three to five years to build.

View the video here on your mobile device.

Whether they know it or not, Ontario drivers are suffering due to fraud. According to a recent RBC Insurance roundtable, fraud costs represent about $1.3 billion of $9 billion in premiums.

It’s not always cases of odometer rollback and VIN swapping that ramp up the costs, though those do tax the system. It’s also the filing of false claims and even excessive assessment submissions from health care providers.

Are the Ontario auto insurance changes a result of fraud or is fraud a result of the current system? We asked Barb Sulzenko-Laurie, IBC’s Vice President of Policy.

Barb Sulzenko-Laurie: It depends on how you define fraud. If the resources are in the system and anyone who’s using the system says I have a right to use those resources, is that fraud? I wouldn’t call that fraud. I also don’t expect that people who are injured for the first time in a motor vehicle accident know what’s good for them so they’re completely in the hands of people who are advising them. So, is that fraud? I don’t think so. If they overuse the resources and certainly they don’t intend to develop chronic pain conditions and so on. What I think it is is the combination of the richness of the system to begin with and then the fact that there are so many stakeholders, so many different kinds of med rehab providers who are offering their services and they’re supported by the legal community to maximize the use of the available resources. So we’ve had the results that we’ve had in terms of cost to drivers which I think we have to reverse. People are having a hard enough time out there dealing with their housing costs, their food costs, their clothing costs; they should not have to face continuing increases in the price of auto insurance.

Drivers distracted by dogs; many don’t realize it

Thirty-one percent of respondents admit to being distracted by their dog while driving; however 59 percent have participated in at least one distracting behavior while driving with their dog. More than half (55 percent) have pet their dog while driving, and one in five allowed their dog to sit in their lap (21 percent). Other distracting behaviors drivers admitted to include giving food and water to their dog (seven percent) and playing with their dog (five percent). These behaviors can distract the driver and increase the risk of a crash. The AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety found that looking away from the road for only two seconds doubles your risk of being in a crash.

Unrestrained dogs dangerous to driver, passenger and man’s best friend

An overwhelming 80 percent of respondents stated that they have driven with their pets on a variety of car trips including day trips, local errands and leisure trips, the pet store, dog parks and to work. However only 17 percent use any form of pet restraint system when driving with their dog.

“Restraining your pet when driving can not only help protect your pet, but you and other passengers in your vehicle as well,” cautioned Beth Mosher, AAA Director of Public Affairs. “An unrestrained 10-pound dog in a crash at 50 mph will exert roughly 500 pounds of pressure, while an unrestrained 80-pound dog in a crash at only 30 mph will exert 2,400 pounds of pressure. Imagine the devastation that can cause to your pet and anyone in the vehicle in its path.”

While the results were higher than the $4.4 billion in profits booked in the same 2009 period, the banks took a major hit from weakness in their capital markets divisions.

The economic recovery in the last year and continued growth in the housing market helped boost the banks’ main lending businesses to ordinary consumers, homeowners and companies.

As well, the healthier economy helped cut the number of bad loans.

However, capital markets earnings were nearly halved to $1.05 billion, as trading revenues declined from lofty heights last year when the economy was first showing signs of a recovery.

Troubles in Europe and the continued weakness of the U.S. economy have eroded global economic optimism in recent months, and with it stock markets have taken a hit.

That has led to lower corporate financings and weaker profits on stock and bond trading.

The capital markets decline has put a major weight on overall results when compared to the second quarter of this year, when big banks’ profits were a beefier $5.09 billion.

TD Bank was the last of the Canadian banks to report its third-quarter results, saying its profits grew 29 per cent to $1.18 billion, narrowly missing analyst expectations.

John McArthur, the chairman of AMAC Consultants, Inc. shares his thoughts on the pending Ontario auto reforms.

John McArthur: I chaired the Claims Committee for the Insurance Bureau of Canada in 1990 or thereabouts when the first auto reform legislation was implemented in Ontario, and there have been two iterations since then and now this.

The pattern is always the same. After the implementation of the legislation the companies appear to be making money; they either reduce their rates or hold their rates. And then over a period of two to five years the service providers and the legal profession, and the other pariahs hanging around the periphery of the business, figure out how to take advantage of loop holes in the new legislation. Companies suddenly come alive to the fact that they have not properly provided for their claims. There is stir-step reserve increasing on previous year’s claims, and all of a sudden the loss ratios go through the roof. Then they go off to the government asking for more auto reform.

I’ve long held the view that it isn’t the system, it’s how the system is managed. The two most stable environments in the country are British Columbia and Quebec. One is virtually a full tort system, British Columbia, that hasn’t changed very much in the last 30 years. The Quebec model is really a full no-tort system. And they’ve both been very, very stable over time. Now the common denominator is that they both have a monopoly on the basic coverage and they’re government owned, and they’re on both sides of the equation when it comes to settling claims. But I think the insurance companies in Ontario, and Alberta for that matter and the Maritimes, could take a lesson from the large Worker’s Compensation carriers in the United States, who don’t adjust claims on the telephone with people who’ve been three months in the business, they have experts who go out in the field and make early contact, early intervention. They take control of the claim and they get the injured party into the hands of their medical providers.  And that doesn’t happen here.

“Over 50% of Canadian households have pets, though only 1% of those pets have pet insurance. Petsecure’s mission is to educate, promote and share important pet insurance information with Canadian pet parents”, said Randy Valpy, President and Chief Executive Officer of Petsecure pet health insurance. “With growth in our membership and our industry, we know that pet parents are becoming more aware of the importance of pet insurance and enjoying the peace of mind of knowing they are prepared to provide the best possible medical care for their pets, should they need it.”

In celebration of Pet Health Insurance Month, Petsecure is offering a contest at participating veterinary clinics across Canada and online at www.petsecure.com. With sponsors including Purina, PetLynx, Ducks Unlimited Canada, Dogs in Canada magazine, Modern Dog magazine, Fetch & Pounce, the Farley Foundation, the Canadian Kennel Club and London Drugs, one lucky winner will win the grand prize valued at over $4,000 with one year of coverage with Petsecure, a 40″ Sony LCD TV, a one year supply of pet food, an iPod nano and much more. This year, Petsecure has added a second prize of an Apple iPad and a third prize of an Apple iPod Touch, along with 25 instant win prizes!

Petsecure pet insurance is also encouraging all participating veterinary clinics to help in spreading the important message of pet insurance by offering one prize to a veterinary clinic in each territory for the best pet health insurance display.

View the video here on your mobile device.

The Insurance Bureau of Canada and the Financial Services Commission of Ontario have stated that the changes to the province’s auto insurance system will give consumers choice while still providing the most generous medical and rehabilitation benefits in the country.

ILSTV asked IBC’s Vice President of Policy Barb Sulzenko-Laurie about how these changes will impact the auto insurance system in Ontario.

Barb Sulzenko Laurie: Well, you know the other thing is I don’t think the changes are all that big. The changes that have been made to the standard auto products in Ontario make it look more like the standard auto products in, for example, New Brunswick or Alberta. It still has the provision on a no-fault basis for catastrophic injuries up to $1 million in med rehab assistance and up to $1 million in attendant care assistance is available, which the other provinces don’t have.

But largely it looks like the auto insurance product that people have been using in other provinces for a number of years. For most people – the vast majority of people – the injuries that they receive in a motor vehicle accident are going to require resources that don’t come anywhere near the resources that are available to them. So it’s easy to blow up the changes and in a macro sense, maybe they are significant but I think from the standpoint of the individual policyholder and the individual who is injured in a motor vehicle accident, I don’t think that they are so significant.

On the other hand, we do know that drivers have been increasingly alarmed about the price of auto insurance. Two years ago when we were saying that the average price of auto insurance in Ontario was about 25 percent higher than in the next most expensive province in Canada [Alberta], well now it’s 38 percent higher than in the next most expensive province in Canada. That means that people are paying for auto insurance in Ontario, more of their disposable income, more of the money they want to use for other things than in other provinces. Clearly they need some relief on that and if these reforms are the beginning of providing that relief in terms of the amount of their household resources that they have to spend on insurance, then I certainly am cheering them on and hopefully they will be, too.