Andrew M. Diamond

The insured applied for statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The insurer initiated a Preliminary Issue Hearing to dismiss the application due to the insured's failure to attend insurer examinations.

Prior to the hearing, the insured attended the examination, rendering the preliminary issue moot.

The insurer sought its expenses for preparing for the hearing.

The Arbitrator reserved the issue of expenses to the arbitrator seized of the substantive arbitration, noting that the delay in attending the examination may be relevant to the final disposition.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

At the scheduled arbitration hearing, the applicant failed to attend and her representative was not prepared to call evidence.

The insurer requested that the application be dismissed.

The arbitrator dismissed the application due to the applicant's unexplained absence.

The insurer was awarded $1,200 in expenses.

Following a preliminary issue hearing where it was determined the applicant was not involved in an accident, the insurer requested an expense hearing.

The arbitrator found the applicant's claim to be frivolous and vexatious due to adverse credibility findings.

The applicant was ordered to pay the insurer's expenses in the amount of $13,220.38.

The applicant sought to add claims for various statutory accident benefits to an ongoing arbitration three years after the mediator's report was issued.

The insurer argued the claims were barred by the two-year limitation period under the Insurance Act and the Schedule.

The arbitrator found that the applicant failed to commence arbitration within two years of the insurer's refusal to pay or within 90 days of receiving the mediator's report.

The request to add the claims was dismissed as time-barred.

The applicant purchased return airline tickets to Pakistan from a travel agent.

While the applicant was abroad, the travel agent ceased operations without having purchased the return tickets.

The applicant had to purchase replacement tickets to return to Canada and subsequently filed a claim for compensation with the Travel Industry Council of Ontario (TICO).

TICO denied the claim because it was filed beyond the strict three-month limitation period set out in Ontario Regulation 26/05.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, holding that neither TICO nor the Tribunal has the discretionary power to extend the legislated timelines, despite the unfairness to the applicant who was travelling during the limitation period.

The applicant appealed the 45-day impoundment of his motor vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act, arguing that the loss of the vehicle would result in exceptional hardship.

The vehicle was impounded after the applicant's son was caught driving it while his licence was suspended for a Criminal Code conviction.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal and confirmed the impoundment, finding that the applicant and his family had access to an alternate vehicle (a BMW SUV) and other transportation options.

Under O. Reg. 631/98, the availability of an alternative to the impounded vehicle precludes a finding of exceptional hardship.