AUGUST 2015

Welcome to the First Issue of the K-W OIAA bulletin for the 2015- 2016 year. Our annual Golf tournament was held on June 25, 2015 at Ariss Valley Golf Course, we had a beautiful day and an amazing turn out. The beneficiary for the golf tournament was the KW Humane Society, thank you to all of our sponsors and members for participating in this event and making it the HUGE success that it was.

Our next event is the annual Tradeshow held at the Concordia Club in Kitchener on September 24, 2015. A reminder that booths are filled on a first come first serve basis and they fill up fast. Registration will soon be open. If you have any questions relating to the Tradeshow please contact: Jennifer Brown, Jennifer.brown@economical.com or 519-570-8500 ext. 43375 or Ryan Potts, ryan.potts@scm.ca We will be holding an election for the Social Director Position at the Tradeshow. If you are interested in being on the executive as a Social Director please contact Jennifer Brown to put your name forward. A general reminder that Social members are the only members who can vote for this position and only those members who are currently in good standing within the K-W OIAA. Each member may only cast one vote. It is now the president’s duty to choose a charity to be the beneficiary of the 50/50 draws and the Annual Golf Tournament. I am pleased to announce that for the 2015 -2016 year I have chosen the Food Bank of Waterloo Region. I was recently able to volunteer with Economical Insurance as a team building experience within the Food Bank of Waterloo. During this experience, some were filling orders for other organizations that require food from the Food Bank, there were orders placed for baby food and formula. I actually was in tears to learn that this part of the order could not be filled because there was no baby food or formula available in the warehouse at that time. As a mother of a young child, this was heart wrenching and made my charity choice very easy. I hope that you continue to support our organizations efforts to fundraising for the community and also consider donating if you have the opportunity. The Executive committee and I are always available if you have questions or concerns about or organization, we have a new email address where you can reach us at: kw-oiaa@yahoo.ca or contact myself at Jennifer.brown@economical.com Sincerely,

Jennifer Brown Economical Insurance K-W OIAA President

1

Jennifer Brown Ryan Potts President Vice‐President Economical Insurance ClaimsPro 519-570-8500 x 43375 519‐836‐2171 Email: jennifer.brown@economical.com Email: ryan.potts@scm.ca

Laura Potts Mark Potts Past‐President Treasurer Aviva Insurance ClaimsPro ‐ Kitchener 519-883-7579 226‐750‐0087 Email: laura_potts@avivacanada.com Email: mark.potts@scm.ca

Carrie Keogh Stephen Tucker MA, CIP, CRM Secretary Toronto Representative

Economical Insurance Economical Insurance Email: carrie.hutter@gmail.com 519‐570‐8500 X43281 Email: stephen.tucker@economical.com

Gillian Reain, BA Leeann Darke Director Director

Economical Insurance The Co-Operators 519‐570‐8500 X43283 519-618-1230 Email: gillian.reain@economical.com Email: leeann_darke@cooperators.ca

Ashleigh Leon Stephanie Storer Social Director Social Director Miller Thomson LLP CKR Global Investigations 519‐593‐2427 519‐884‐6352 X233 Email: aleon@millerthomson.com Email: stefstorer@hotmail.com

Cyndy Craig Daniel Strigberger Out of Town Liaison Web Director Arch Insurance Canada Ltd Samis & Company 647‐293‐5436 416-365-0000 x127 Email: ccraig@archinsurance.com Email: dstrigberger@samislaw.com Manish Patel Bulletin Director Larrek Investigations 519‐576‐3010 Email: mpatel@larrek.com

If you have any questions, concerns or comments, please do not

hesitate to contact any of the above committee members.

2

President’s Message Page 1 2015‐2016 K‐W OIAA Executive Page 2 Schedule of Events Page 4 Social Chit Chat Page 5 Toronto Delegate Report Page 6 Announcements Page 7 Samis + Company: Insurers Shoddy Investigation Defeats Its Misrepresentation Defence Pages 11‐13 Arcon Forensic Engineers: Forensic Engineering Of Pedestrian Collisions – Beyond the Obvious Pages 18‐20 Miller Thomson: The Dog: Man’s Best Friend (and Strict Liability) Pages 22‐23 2015 Charity Golf Tournament Photos Pages 31‐33 2015 K‐W OIAA Trade Show Registration Pages 34‐35 Advertisers’ Index Page 36

3

September 24, 2015 – Tradeshow- Concordia Club Kitchener

October 29, 2015 – Monthly Meeting November 26, 2015- Chili Cook Off December – No scheduled events January 28, 2016 – Monthly Meeting February 25, 2016 – Monthly Meeting March 31, 2016 – Monthly Meeting April 28, 2016- Election & Fun Night May 26, 2016 – Monthly Meeting June 23, 2016 - Golf Tournament- Ariss Valley Golf & Country Club *All events occur at Golfs Steakhouse 598 Lancaster St W, Kitchener, ON N2K 1M3 unless otherwise noted.

4

August 2015 Welcome Back! Your KW-OIAA is very excited for the upcoming 2015-2016 year and as usual will be kicking it off with a bang at the Annual Tradeshow, September 24, 2015. Please make sure to register your spot early so you do not miss out! Check out our website for all of the details. Not surprisingly, despite the hiatus in our monthly newsletters over the summer, the controversy surrounding Ontario auto insurance rates and the promise of a 15% reduction in rates by this month surges on. There are now reports that Ontarian’s have been overpaying for auto insurance for several years (no surprise there) and the promise of a rate reduction has fallen short by nearly 10%. For more on these topics visit http://business.financialpost.com/news/ontario-drivers-have-overpaid-up-to-4-billion-in-auto-insurance-new-study-finds and http://www.thestar.com/news/queenspark/2015/07/15/ontario-liberals-fall-short-on-auto-insurance-promise.html We look forward to your support over the upcoming year. As always, if you have any comments or would like to discuss anything with your executive please contact any one of us. Your social director, Ashleigh Leon

5

I hope everyone is enjoying a safe and happy summer. The 2015 – 2016 OIAA term is upon us and I would like to thank Alf Strudwick for all of his contributions as the President for the 2014 – 2015 term. Sadly we say

goodbye and thank you to Tammie Norn who is the outgoing Past President. Alf will now assume the role of Past President and Catherine Groot is the incoming President. We also welcome Leanne Hardman to the senior executive as Secretary and new Toronto Delegates Shawna Gillen and Johanna Rienzo. This year is the 85th anniversary of the OIAA and Catherine has a number of exciting things planned to mark this milestone including free membership. If you know any colleagues who are not members, this is the year to introduce them to the OIAA and get them involved. I am looking forward to representing the K/W chapter on the provincial executive again this year and I will do my best to keep everyone informed of what is going on in Toronto and throughout the province. The September Kickoff event is scheduled to take place at the Stock Exchange downtown on September 9th. As always additional event details are available at www.oiaa.com. Regards, Stephen Tucker Kitchener Waterloo OIAA Chapter, Toronto Delegate

6

7

8

9

10

Insurer’s Shoddy Investigation Defeats its Misrepresentation Defence

Monika Bolejszo | 519.591.6661 | mbolejszo@samislaw.com

The defendant insurer purported to void the plaintiff’s auto insurance policy based on an alleged misrepresentation at the time of the application. The defendant contended that the plaintiff wrongly reported on her application that she was the only licensed driver living in the household when she was in fact living with her boyfriend.

The plaintiff, Ms. Barsheshet, sued the insurer, Aviva, seeking among other things a declaration that her policy was valid at the time it was issued. She also sought damages arising from a quote for insurance that was significantly higher following Aviva’s actions. She then moved for summary judgment.

Background Facts In the year or two prior to applying for insurance, Barsheshet lived with her boyfriend, Mr. Daca, and her two children, of which Daca was the father of the second child. In 2012, Barsheshet indicated that Daca moved out in November 2012 as the relationship between herself and Daca had broken down. In December 2013, Barsheshet purchased a car and obtained insurance. Later that year, she also entered into a tenancy agreement by herself. By May 2013, Barsheshet reconciled with Daca, at which point Barsheshet was pregnant with their second child. Both Barsheshet and Daca set out in their affidavits that they did not live together during this time; however, Daca was at Barsheshet’s apartment on a regular basis assisting with caregiving. He would sometimes stay overnight. In the first six months of obtaining insurance, Barsheshet had been involved in several minor accidents. Daca did not drive the car on any occasion (this was not disputed by Aviva). After Barsheshet’s second accident, Aviva decided to investigate. Aviva concluded that Barsheshet misrepresented information by indicating that she was the only licensed

11

driver in her household, when she was living with Daca, who was also a licensed driver. Aviva cancelled the policy “ab initio”.

The Motion Barsheshet sought summary judgment, as she contended there was no genuine issue requiring a trial. The defendant submitted that a trial was required, as it would present evidence at trial that Daca lived with Barsheshet at the time of the insurance application.

Aviva presented evidence at the motion, which consisted of a Ministry of Transportation search. It showed that Daca lived at the same address as Barsheshet. Barsheshet also attended an Examination under Oath at Aviva’s request. At the EUO the plaintiff refused to answer questions material to the issue at hand. Aviva never sought to compel those answers. Aviva also sent someone to interview some people at the two apartment buildings Barsheshet lived at. These interviews included a lot of leading questions, which the court held were unsatisfactory in drawing any conclusion. Aviva also presented a report from a private investigator. The focus of the investigator’s report was whether Daca ever drove the car, not whether Daca ever lived with Barsheshet at the relevant time. Further, no one attended the address that Daca had reportedly moved to after his split with Barsheshet in November 2012 to inquire whether he had lived there. The court found that Daca and Barsheshet’s evidence was not challenged through cross-examination. Ordinarily, leave to cross-examination in simplified proceedings is required. However, Barsheshet volunteered to be examined for discovery well before the return of the motion. Aviva never took the opportunity to examine her. The court also held that the defendant’s evidence was consistent with the information put forth by Daca and Barsheshet. Conversely, Aviva’s position that there was a misrepresentation was based on indirect, ambiguous and overstated evidence. Aviva stated that the evidence it put forth was enough to create a suspicion that Daca lived with Barsheshet. It also stated that the evidence it had submitted was enough to create a “flavour” of what would be presented at trial. However, the court indicated that a suspicion is not enough to create a need for a trial. Also, the defendant needs to put its best foot forward on a summary judgment motion, not just foreshadow what evidence might be called in the future. The court found that there was no genuine issue requiring a trial, and Aviva failed to prove that Barsheshet had made the alleged misrepresentation in her application for insurance. The court granted the plaintiff’s motion and issued a number of declarations in her favour. She did not receive judgment for damages for the higher insurance quote, since she never paid the higher premiums.

12

Aftermath This case is an illustration of the need to undergo the proper investigations from the outset, and to gather the appropriate information when trying to void a policy “ab initio”. Mere speculations or foreshadowing of evidence is not enough at a summary judgment motion, and would not be enough at trial. Insurers need to take the proper steps from the outset by asking the right questions and looking at the specific circumstances surrounding a misrepresentation, conducting a fulsome investigation and taking every opportunity to gather evidence that is presented to the insurer. Failing to investigate early and gather key information to support the insurer’s position could defeat an otherwise meritorious ground to invalidate a claim due to misrepresentation.

Monika Bolejszo is a lawyer at Samis + Company’s new office in Waterloo. www.samislaw.com Toronto | Waterloo

13

14

15

16

17

Forensic Engineering of Pedestrian Collisions – Beyond the Obvious

Dr. Alan Morris (PhD., P.Eng.) Introduction Screeching tires. Heavy thud. Commotion. Police and Ambulance sirens. Hospital ER. Broken bones. Police statements. Rehabilitation. Who’s at fault?

Collisions involving pedestrians and vehicles regularly receive coverage in the news. Due to the profile and number of incidents, on November 7, 2011, Ontario’s Chief Coroner announced a review into pedestrian deaths across the province. Of all road users across Canada, pedestrian account for 13.9% of fatalities (n=309) and 12.5% of serious injuries (n=1431).1 In 2008, in Ontario over 4,700 pedestrians were involved in collisions2, and approximately 113 fatalities occur in Ontario annually.3 Most often the injuries were sustained to the lower‐body and the head.4 As forensic engineers, we are often asked by our clients to identify the physical circumstances of the collision with only a few pieces of information to go on. The questions we are often asked include: How fast was the vehicle travelling? How fast was the pedestrian moving? What direction was the pedestrian facing? Was the pedestrian visible? Was there an opportunity for the driver to avoid? Every collision reconstruction is unique due to the circumstances and the amount of evidence available. The ease of accident reconstruction may depend on the availability of certain evidence: tire marks, vehicle damage, clothing material transfer to the vehicle, pedestrian articles and debris, blood stains, eyewitnesses, crash data records, scene photographs and measurements. A thorough reconstruction effort takes all of the available information to piece together the collision story. The purpose of this article is to review some of the forensic engineering methods that can be used to identify the physical circumstances of a collision so that others may use this information to assess liability. Injury Information about the injury may come from various sources, including: the Ambulance Call report, the Emergency Room report, Radiological Exam images and reports, the Hospital Discharge report, Rehabilitation Services reports, and Medico‐Legal reports. These information sources help us to define the injury sustained. The nature of the injuries can provide us with important clues to the puzzle. Bone fractures are very common in the pedestrian accidents that we review. Radiological images (planar radiographs (x‐ray), computed tomography (CT), and/or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)) may be available from hospital records. X‐rays are a two‐dimensional (2D) image format, while CT and MRI scans are recorded in three‐dimensions as a series of slices but are typically provided to interested parties as 2D images. It is possible to take the original set of complete scans and reconstruct them as three‐

1 Canadian Motor Traffic Vehicle Collision Statistics: 2009. Transport Canada: TP 3322. 2 Ontario Road Safety Annual Report (2008). Ontario Ministry of Transportation 3 Office of the Chief Coroner. Government of Ontario (2011) 4 Ontario Injury Compass (2009): Pedestrian Injuries Vol 6, Issue 3 (March).

18

dimensional (3D) representations of the skeletal anatomy. The ability to look at these 3D reconstructions from various angles can help identify the orientation of vehicle impact with a pedestrian’s limb. Fracture vs. Vehicle Speed Injury details can be useful for pedestrian‐vehicle collision reconstruction as the type of lower‐limb injury can be related to the speed of the impacting vehicle. A peer‐reviewed journal article was able to identify a relationship between bumper height, vehicle impact speed, and the type of lower‐limb injury.5 The author concluded that knee ligament injuries typically occur at vehicle impact speeds of 20‐45 km/h (median = 27.5 km/h) from sedan‐height bumpers, femur fractures occur at vehicle impact speeds of 22‐55 km/h (median = 35.0 km/h) from SUV‐height bumpers, and tibia fractures occur at vehicle impact speeds of 21‐51 km/h (median = 40 km/h) with sedan‐height bumpers. Perception-Response Time Perception Response Time (PRT) can be defined as the time it takes to detect or perceive a hazard (e.g. oncoming car, pedestrian), make a judgment on the hazard, and then physically respond to the hazard (e.g. braking or steering). The PRT of a driver to a hazard will depend on many variables including: driver condition, distraction, visibility of the hazard, time of day, position of the hazard, nature of the roadway setting (e.g. urban, rural, highway), driver’s speed of approach, speed of the moving hazard, intersection or straight roadway, and whether the hazard was initially seen stopped or not. A significant amount of research has been done in the area including closed‐course experiments and virtual‐reality simulations, and at different light levels corresponding to time‐of‐day. Driver PRT estimates for path intrusion hazards can range from 1.0–3.0 seconds depending on the scenario.6 Visibility The visibility of a pedestrian to a driver can depend on a number of factors that may include: the visual acuity and contrast sensitivity of the driver, the complexity of the scene, conspicuity of the pedestrian, weather conditions, the illumination of the scene, the position of the sun and amount of windshield glare, the speed of pedestrian movement, and the speed and level of roadway traffic. Measurement of a driver’s visual acuity and contrast sensitivity is often not possible. A common forensic engineering approach is to perform in‐the‐field recreations of the accident scenario to assess visibility with attention to the factors noted above. It is important to assess the pedestrian contrast relative to the scene background ‐ to judge how well the pedestrian “stood out”. Pedestrian visibility may be assessed by photographing the recreated scene from the driver’s point‐of‐view while documenting the visibility of the pedestrian. Another approach has been to quantify the level of pedestrian‐scene contrast using a spot‐photometer light meter directed at the pedestrian to measure the amount of light given off by the pedestrian and compare that against the light given off by the surrounding scene. Pedestrian Throw Distance When a pedestrian has been thrown forward, the throw distance can usefully assist in identifying the speed of the impact vehicle. For front impacts, depending on the speed of the vehicle, the vehicle’s height and height of the bumper, the pedestrian’s body may have wrapped around the vehicle’s bumper and hood before being thrown forward. Injuries may ensue from the vehicle contacts and the subsequent contact with the ground.

5 Matsui, Y. (2005) Effects of vehicle bumper height and impact velocity on type of lower extremity injury in vehicle‐pedestrian accidents. Accident Analysis and Prevention 37: 633‐640. 6 Integrated Driver Response Research (I.DRR, v2.0). Crash Safety Solutions LLC.

19

Missing facts about the pedestrian impact may include: vehicle impact speed, if/how the pedestrian wrapped around the vehicle hood, and how far the pedestrian had slid on the ground before coming to rest. A number of theoretical mathematical models have been developed to estimate pedestrian throw distance from vehicle impact speed, others have used accident data to establish empirical equations that relate pedestrian throw distance to vehicle impact speed, and finally validated computer simulations have been used to estimate the interaction between computer models of the pedestrian and vehicle and the subsequent throw of the pedestrian. Since parameters required by mathematical models are too often unknown, we have often relied on the empirical equations which also will require an estimate of the ground’s friction. The precision of the vehicle impact speed estimates are approximately ±10 km/h, which covers approximately 85% of the recorded accident data used to construct the model.7 Pedestrian Speed What about the pedestrian’s movement before impact? Was the person walking or running across the road? Aside from an estimate of the direction of pedestrian contact defined from fractures, the point of impact and final resting position of the pedestrian can help us estimate the speed of pedestrian travel. The accident scene may provide us with evidence on the ground of the point of impact such as a shoe scuff in the middle of a lane. The point of impact on the vehicle may be indicated by dents on the front bumper or hood, or windshield cracks. If the final resting position of the pedestrian was known and documented by the police, we can estimate the pedestrian’s speed just before impact using commercial collision reconstruction software. PC‐Crash8, a Windows©‐based vehicle collision‐reconstruction software, incorporates a validated human mannequin model that can be used to estimate pedestrian movement from impact through sliding across the ground to a final rest position. Summary On the surface, the circumstances of the pedestrian collision may appear to be defined by the statements of driver, pedestrian, and eyewitnesses. However, using all of the available evidence and attention to the smallest details, forensic engineering can provide reliable estimates of the physical circumstances of a collision as a basis for others to establish the liability of the parties involved. About the Author Dr. Alan Morris (PhD., P.Eng.) is a Biomechanical Engineer & Collision Reconstructionist who investigates all varieties of vehicle collisions, slip/trip/falls, & product failures with Arcon Forensic Engineers – a multi‐disciplinary forensic engineering consultancy experienced in collision reconstruction, fire origin and cause, electrical failures, structural assessment, and product liability.

7 Toor, A., and Araszewski, M. (2003) Theoretical vs. empirical solutions for vehicle/pedestrian collisions. Society of Automotive Engineers #2003‐01‐0883. 8 PC‐Crash 9.0., Dr. Steffan Datentechnik (DSD) GmbH. Linz, Austria.

20

21

The Dog: Man’s Best Friend (and Strict Liability) To own a dog is to enjoy the universally recognized companionship and unconditional love of an animal that has secured the species the timeless, if patriarchal, moniker of “man’s best friend”. From a liability perspective, however, to own a dog is to expose yourself to a strict liability that accompanies relatively few personal decisions and, certainly, no other choice of family pet. Owning a dog, or even taking care of a friend’s dog while she is on vacation, will leave you strictly liable for the bite of your furry, if inscrutable, friend. Ignorance was Bliss: the Displaced Doctrine of Scienter When it comes to the imposition of strict liability, the Dog Owners’ Liability Act is a paragon of clear legislative drafting. Section 2 provides that the “owner of a dog is liable for damages resulting from a bite or attack by the dog on another person or domestic animal.” Where there is more than one owner, those owners are jointly and severally liable. The legislative purpose behind the enactment of the Dog Owners’ Liability Act in 1980 was to replace the doctrine of scienter, which was, and remains, the common law’s own strict liability regime for dog owners. In keeping with general common law principles of civil liability, the doctrine of scienter requires that, in order to hold an owner liable for the dog’s bite or attack, it must be shown that the owner knew that the dog had bitten someone before or, at least, that the dog had a ‘vicious propensity’. Once the owner had acquired this knowledge, and his dog injured someone, the common law held the owner strictly responsible for the dangerous animal’s actions, as the keeper of a dangerous animal was seen to do so at his or her own peril. To Harbour is to Own: Strict Liability Extended While indisputably clear with respect to the liability of the dog’s owner or owners, the Act is decidedly less clear on two practical questions. First, and while the Act extends the definition of “owner” beyond a simple question of property to include “a person who possesses or harbours the dog”, it provides no guidance as to what it means to ‘harbour’ a dog. On this issue at least, the courts have stepped into to provide clear guidance, and the leading decision remains that of Justice Borins in Purcell v. Taylor. Justice Borins engaged in scholarly discussion of the treatment of the liability of a person who ‘harbours’ or ‘keeps’ an animal both under the English common law and under the American and Australian dog owner and animal liability statutes, some of which date back to the turn of the 20th Century. His conclusion was that to ‘harbour’ a dog is to exercise some degree of care and control over her. In turn, taking care of a dog required, among other things, feeding and exercising the animal, and otherwise to “temporarily assume those responsibilities toward the dog which dog owners customarily assume”. The second question, which neither the Act nor the case law clearly address, is how the Act interacts with the Occupiers’ Liability Act. The Dog Owners’ Liability Act itself provides that where “damage is caused by being bitten or attacked by a dog on the premises of the owner, the liability of the owner is determined under this Act and not under the Occupiers’ Liability Act.” This is satisfactory where the dog owner is also the sole person responsible for the premises under the Occupiers’ Liability Act, but what happens where there is more than one occupier or where the occupier and the dog owner are two separate people? The former scenario is particularly a problem for landlords and the latter for social hosts and condominiums and their common areas. At least for the landlords and social hosts, cases such as Purcell, Graham v. 640847 Ontario Ltd., and Hudymia v. Martin are all clear that simply permitting a dog to reside on your real property is not ‘harbouring’ and, therefore, does transform you into an ‘owner’ for purposes of the Act.

Authored by: Eric A. F. Grigg Associate, London 519.931.3544

22

Instead, the courts look to whether permitting the dog onto your real property violated your general duty under the Occupiers’ Liability Act to keep your premises reasonably safe. This analysis in turn reengages the common law strict liability doctrine of scienter. The key question then becomes: did the occupier (i.e. landlord/social host) know the dog had previously bitten someone or otherwise demonstrated a ‘vicious propensity’? If not, then the occupier ought to have a complete defence, one strong enough to support a motion for summary judgment dismissing the action as against the occupier, as was the case in Graham. Plaintiffs Continue Barking up the Wrong Tree The upshot of the Act ought to be to decrease the number of dog bite claims against non-owner occupiers. Presumably a potential plaintiff would rather pursue the relatively sure bet of a strictly liable owner rather than the riskier liability claim against an occupier who may or may not have any prior knowledge of the dog in issue. Practically, however, there are a number of reasons that a plaintiff will look to an occupier notwithstanding the Act’s strict liability regime, not least of which would be the scenario where the owner cannot be located for service or where the owner’s access to indemnity insurance is in doubt. Nonetheless, a non-owner occupier, and his insurer, should feel rather bullish about the defensibility of his liability position in such a claim and, in the absence of compelling evidence at discovery to establish a scienter claim, the plaintiff ought to strongly consider releasing the non-owner occupier, if only to avoid a future adverse cost award. Eric Grigg is a litigation lawyer and associate in Miller Thomson’s London office where he previously summered and

articled. As a recent call, Eric has a general litigation practice with an emphasis on insurance and commercial matters.

www.millerthomson.com Follow us on:

Vancouver Calgary Edmonton Regina Saskatoon London Kitchener-Waterloo Guelph Toronto Markham Montreal

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

K- W O.I.A.A.

TRADE SHOW BOOTH REGISTRATION

WHEN: Thursday, September 24, 2015 WHERE: CONCORDIA CLUB, 429 Ottawa Street South Kitchener, Ontario

FEES: Single booth: (10’ x 10’, including tablecloth)

BOOTHS WILL NOT BE HELD WITHOUT PAYMENT Booth price $400.00 + $52.00 HST = $452.00

Dinner: $35.00 per meal (HST $4.00 included in price) HST#: 89331 1217 RT 0001 IMPORTANT TIMES: 12:00 pm – Booth Set Up 4:00 pm – Guests Arrive 7:00 pm – Dinner

Please Register at: http://www.kw-oiaa.ca/ Please complete the following if you are unable to register online: Company Name: Contact Person: Telephone: Email _____________________________________________________ Do you Require Electrical Outlet:_____________________ Do you Require a Vegetarian Meal:____________________ Email: Fax: #_____ Booth(s) at $452.00 = $ #_____ Dinner(s) at $35.00 = $ ________

Cheque Total $ Cheques should be made payable to: K-W O.I.A.A.

Registration must be accompanied by full payment MEALS MUST BE ORDERED IN ADVANCE

Mail cheque and Copy of Registration to: Inquiries can be directed to: K-W OIAA, P.O. Box 40079, Jennifer Brown Waterloo Square – 75 King Street South Jennifer.brown@economical.com Waterloo, Ontario N2J 1P2 (519)-570-8500 ext.43375

Please RSVP by September 1, 2015

34

K-W OIAA TRADE SHOW DINNER REGISTRATION

WHEN: THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 24, 2015 WHERE: CONCORDIA CLUB

429 Ottawa Street South, Kitchener

DOORS OPEN: 4:00 P.M. DINNER: 7:00 P.M.

DINNER PRICE: $35.00 (HST $4.00 included in price)

HST#: 89331 1217 RT 0001.

MEALS MUST BE ORDERED IN ADVANCE Please Register at: http://www.kw‐oiaa.ca/

To order your meal(s) please complete the following: Name:________________________________ Telephone : ( ) ____________ Company Name: __________________________________________________ # of Dinner Tickets ____ X $35.00 = $_________ Amount Enclosed Cheques payable to : K‐W OIAA

Mail cheque and Registration form to: K‐W OIAA

P.O. Box 40079 – Waterloo Square 75 King Street South

Waterloo, On N2J 1P2 Inquiries can be directed to: Jennifer Brown 519‐570‐8500 ext. 43375 Jennifer.Brown@economical.com Ryan Potts 519‐836‐2171 ryan.potts@scm.ca

* PLEASE NOTE – NO MEALS CAN BE PURCHASED ON THE DAY OF THE TRADESHOW *

35

Access Restoration Services 9 Arcon Engineering 16 Atlas‐Apex Roofing Inc 28 Autopro 30 Bayshore Home Health 26 Brodrechts 26 Carpet Department Inside Back Cover Carstar 30 Caskanette Udall Outside Back Cover CRDN 10 CSN Regency 25 Davis Martindale Advisory Service Inc Inside Front Cover First General Services 27 First Response Restoration Inside Back Cover Forbes Motors 26 Golden Triangle Restoration 27 Ground Force 30 Highland DKI Outside Back Cover Hrycay Consulting Engineers 29 KPMG 9 Larrek Investigations 16 Lipskie Appraisal Services 17 MD&D 17 Miller Thomson LLP 10 Origin & Cause Inc 8 Pario 15 Parkway Auto Recyclers 24 Paul Davis Systems Inside Front Cover PriceWaterhouse Coopers Inside Back Cover Queensway Auto Body LTD 30 Relectronic‐Remech 17 Restoration 1 13 Strone Restorations 24 We Care Home Health Services 28 Whitehall Bureau of Canada Ltd 25 Winmar 14 Xpera Risk Mitigation & Investigation 21

36