Barry S. Arbus

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and settled his statutory accident benefits claim with the insurer, executing a full and final release.

Subsequently, an arbitration was commenced for an unpaid catastrophic assessment report, which was dismissed due to the prior settlement.

The insurer sought its expenses for the arbitration.

The arbitrator found that the arbitration was driven by the assessment facility, AssessNet Inc., rather than the applicant.

The arbitrator awarded the insurer its expenses in the amount of $13,387.31, and ordered that they be paid by AssessNet Inc. as the party instructing the conduct of the hearing.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following an alleged rear-end collision.

The insurer denied the claim, arguing the incident was staged.

At a preliminary issue hearing, the arbitrator considered evidence from a police officer and an accident reconstruction expert, both of whom testified that the vehicle damage and resting positions were inconsistent with a rear-end collision.

The arbitrator concluded that the applicant failed to meet her burden of proving that an 'accident' occurred within the meaning of section 3(1) of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The Applicant was injured in a 1997 motor vehicle accident and settled his statutory accident benefits claim in 2004.

Ten years later, the Applicant purported to rescind the settlement, alleging the Insurer failed to provide a Settlement Disclosure Notice as required by Ontario Regulation 664, and applied for arbitration.

The Insurer raised a preliminary issue, arguing the application should be dismissed under the equitable Doctrine of Laches due to the extreme delay and resulting prejudice from lost files and witnesses.

The Arbitrator held that the right to rescind under the Regulation is a statutory legal right, not an equitable claim, and therefore the Doctrine of Laches does not apply.

The preliminary motion was dismissed, allowing the arbitration to proceed.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought ongoing Income Replacement Benefits (IRBs), medical and rehabilitation benefits outside the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG), and a Special Award.

The arbitrator found that the applicant suffered a substantial inability to perform his pre-accident employment for the first 104 weeks, entitling him to IRBs for that period.

However, the applicant failed to prove a complete inability to engage in any suitable employment beyond the two-year mark.

The arbitrator also concluded that the applicant's injuries, including alleged chronic pain and psychological impairments, did not remove him from the MIG, as the insurer's medical evidence demonstrating no objective impairment was preferred.

The claims for additional treatment plans and a Special Award were dismissed.

The applicant failed to attend the scheduled arbitration hearing regarding statutory accident benefits.

The insurer brought a motion to dismiss the application for arbitration.

The arbitrator found that the applicant had been notified of the proceedings and was aware that failure to attend would result in a motion to dismiss.

The application was dismissed, and the insurer was awarded $500 in expenses.

The applicant applied for statutory accident benefits following two motor vehicle accidents.

The parties were unable to resolve their disputes through mediation, and the applicant applied for arbitration.

At the scheduled arbitration hearing, the applicant failed to appear, although his representative was present.

The insurer brought a motion to dismiss the applications.

The arbitrator found that the applicant had been notified of the proceedings and failed to meet his onus of proof by not attending.

The applications for arbitration were dismissed, and the insurer was awarded $500 in expenses for each application.

The applicant, a taxi driver, was assaulted by passengers and subsequently fell into a ditch while attempting to close the van's door.

He applied for statutory accident benefits, but the insurer disputed whether the incident constituted an 'accident' under section 3(1) of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The arbitrator applied the purpose and causation tests from Greenhalgh, finding that the taxi was being used for its ordinary purpose and that the entire series of events, starting with the use of the automobile, directly caused the impairment.

The arbitrator concluded that the applicant was involved in an accident.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits.

A preliminary issue hearing was held to determine if the applicant had the mental capacity to proceed in the dispute resolution process.

The arbitrator found that the applicant suffered from memory loss and early dementia, and lacked the mental capacity to proceed.

Pursuant to Rule 10.5 of the Dispute Resolution Practice Code, the arbitrator appointed the applicant's brother to act on his behalf and administer the statutory accident benefits.