INTRODUCTION

Much of the existing research about no-fault compensation funds in general has been focused on the legal benefits and drawbacks compared to a fault-based system. However these studies have been often approached from a sceptical viewpoint – are these funds ever a realistic alternative, in limited cases, to traditional liability (including strict liability) or insurance frameworks? Only recently have there been attempts to undertake comparative law analysis of how successful these schemes are in fact, and what are the core elements of their success – and what are their key problems. An identification of the key pillars of no-fault comprehensive compensation funds allows for the next step of analysis to be undertaken on a more thorough and informed basis – specifically the more precise identification of these schemes’ benefits, their fundamental drawbacks and areas for improvement, and the circumstances to which they are suited (or not).

The comparative law analysis of four large mature systems in the previous chapter enabled an identification of the key characteristics of these big funds, and a limited functional comparison with some relevant European non comprehensive funds. In this chapter, there is an analysis of some the key pillars common to multiple jurisdictions, for the successful establishment, administration, and operation of no-fault comprehensive compensation funds. There is also an assessment of some of the common difficulties and problematic elements of these schemes.

There are many possible key pillars that could be identified, but those most relevant to a comparative legal analysis have been selected. It is interesting to identify and analyse these key pillars because the ACC, the TAC, the SAAQ and the MPI are all mature compensation and liability exclusion ecosystems. There has not been a comparative law study of these four compensation funds as mature, standalone systems that identifies the common key positive and negative elements of their structures. In order to gather further useful information, the funds themselves were surveyed on various aspects of these key pillars. This facilitates an analysis that goes beyond the issues already discussed and also considers the payment of compensation, disputes and funding.