Barry S. Arbus, Q.C.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming catastrophic impairment due to mental and behavioural disorders, non-earner benefits, and attendant care benefits.

The arbitrator dismissed all claims, finding that the applicant was malingering.

The arbitrator rejected the applicant's expert evidence due to flawed methodology and inconsistencies, preferring the insurer's expert and surveillance evidence which showed the applicant engaging in normal daily activities.

The arbitrator also found the accident involved minor forces comparable to everyday activities, making the claimed severe impairments implausible.

The applicant was struck by a police vehicle while walking in a parking lot and sought non-earner benefits and medical benefits under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The insurer denied the claims, arguing the applicant's impairments stemmed from a prior 2010 motor vehicle accident and a physical assault that occurred immediately before the 2011 accident.

The arbitrator found that the applicant failed to establish that the 2011 accident caused an impairment that continuously prevented him from engaging in substantially all of his pre-accident activities.

The arbitrator noted the applicant's expert admitted his diagnosis might have changed had he known about the applicant's prior chronic pain.

The application for benefits and a special award was dismissed.

The Applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits, including an Income Replacement Benefit (IRB) beyond the 104-week mark and a Medical Treatment Plan.

The Insurer denied the benefits.

The Arbitrator found that the Applicant did not meet the "complete inability" test required for post-104 week IRBs, noting her history of working in a sedentary position and the availability of suitable alternative employment that would provide a higher income than her pre-accident earnings.

The Arbitrator also dismissed the claim for the Medical Treatment Plan, finding that the Applicant failed to prove it was reasonable and necessary, and did not contradict the Insurer's medical evidence that she had reached maximum therapeutic benefit.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and received income replacement benefits (IRBs) for nine months until he returned to work.

Approximately 23 months after the accident, and 1.5 years after returning to work, he applied for non-earner benefits (NEBs).

The insurer denied the claim.

At a preliminary issue hearing, the arbitrator held that the applicant's claim for NEBs was barred.

The applicant had effectively elected to receive IRBs, making that election final under section 35(3) of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule, despite never formally filing an election form.

Furthermore, the applicant failed to provide timely notice of his intention to apply for NEBs under section 32, prejudicing the insurer.

The applicants sought statutory accident benefits from the insurer following a motor vehicle accident.

The parties were unable to resolve their disputes through mediation and applied for arbitration at the Financial Services Commission of Ontario.

At the teleconference hearing, counsel for both parties advised that they had agreed to a dismissal of the applications for arbitration without costs.

The arbitrator dismissed the applications on consent and ordered no costs or expenses.

The Applicant sought Income Replacement Benefits (IRBs) and medical/rehabilitation expenses following a 2012 motor vehicle accident.

The Arbitrator found that the Applicant did not meet the test for pre-104 week IRBs (substantial inability to perform essential tasks of employment) or post-104 week IRBs (complete inability to engage in suitable employment), noting she had returned to work for a period, completed nursing programs, and cared for four children.

Claims for the cost of a Disability Certificate and a Psycho-Vocational Assessment were also dismissed for failing to meet the statutory requirements for reasonableness and necessity.

The application was dismissed in its entirety.

The applicant was injured as a pedestrian in a motor vehicle accident and applied for statutory accident benefits.

The insurer provided the application forms, but the applicant failed to submit a completed application within the required 30-day period, delaying submission for nearly two years.

The arbitrator found that the applicant did not provide a reasonable explanation for the delay, rejecting arguments of confusion and lack of retained counsel for the accident benefits claim.

Consequently, the applicant was precluded from proceeding to arbitration.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following an incident where he alleged a tractor-trailer backed into his vehicle.

The insurer denied the claim, arguing no collision occurred, relying on dash-cam video gaps and an accident reconstruction expert.

The arbitrator held a preliminary issue hearing to determine if the incident met the definition of an 'accident' under s. 3(1) of the Schedule.

Applying the purpose and causation tests, the arbitrator found that self-reporting collision reports from both drivers confirmed contact between the vehicles.

The arbitrator concluded the applicant was involved in an accident and deferred the issue of expenses to the main hearing.

The applicant suffered a heart attack while driving, causing him to lose control of his vehicle and crash into a ditch.

The position of the vehicle prevented a bystander from administering immediate CPR, and the resulting delay in medical assistance led to severe neurological impairment.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits, arguing the incident was an 'accident' under s. 3(1) of the Schedule.

The arbitrator found that while the purpose test was met, the causation test was not.

The heart attack, rather than the use or operation of the vehicle, was the direct cause and dominant feature of the impairment.

The application was dismissed.

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

Following an arbitration where the applicant was found subject to the Minor Injury Guideline and denied funding for disputed treatment plans, the insurer sought its expenses.

The arbitrator considered the parties' degree of success and written offers to settle.

Finding that the insurer was completely successful and that the applicant failed to accept the insurer's offer to settle on a timely basis, the arbitrator awarded the insurer its reasonable expenses of $10,701.50 inclusive of HST.