Charles Matheson

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

After failing to resolve disputes at mediation, the applicant applied for arbitration.

However, the applicant failed to attend the arbitration hearing, missed multiple scheduled medical assessments, and ceased communicating with his counsel.

The arbitrator granted the applicant's counsel's motion to be removed from the record due to a breakdown in the lawyer-client relationship.

The arbitrator also granted the insurer's motion to dismiss the application for arbitration as frivolous and vexatious due to the applicant's failure to participate.

The applicant was ordered to pay $3,000 in costs to the insurer.

The applicant sought accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident and applied for arbitration.

At the hearing, the applicant's representative brought a verbal motion to withdraw the application with prejudice, as the applicant was out of the country.

The insurer did not object to the withdrawal but sought costs, arguing the late withdrawal prejudiced them.

The arbitrator allowed the withdrawal on the condition that the applicant pay the insurer's reasonable legal expenses.

The arbitrator ordered the applicant to pay $3,992.68 in costs, calculating the amount based on the Legal Aid Services Act rates and a 4:1 ratio for preparation and hearing time.

The insurer brought a motion to stay the applicant's arbitration hearing pending the completion of additional section 44 insurer's examinations.

The applicant sought a catastrophic impairment determination and submitted rebuttal reports to the insurer's initial assessments.

The insurer argued the rebuttal reports constituted a material change requiring further examinations.

The arbitrator found no material change, noting the differing opinions between occupational therapists did not evidence a declining or changed condition.

The motion for a stay was dismissed.

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

The Insurer argued that a prior settlement was binding, but the Arbitrator found the Applicant's rescission letter valid despite lacking a fax cover page.

The Arbitrator declined to recuse himself after viewing the settlement documents.

The Applicant was precluded from arbitrating her claim for non-earner benefits because she failed to attend a mandatory section 44 medical examination.

The Arbitrator also found that the Applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG), as there was no compelling evidence linking her seizures to the accident, and multiple medical assessors concluded her injuries were minor.

Claims for a special award and interest were dismissed, and the Applicant was ordered to pay the Insurer's reasonable expenses.

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

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

The applicant later withdrew the application for arbitration.

The insurer sought its expenses for preparing for the arbitration and for the expense hearing.

The arbitrator found that the applicant waited too long to withdraw the application and ordered the applicant to pay $1,300 in expenses to the insurer for the arbitration preparation.

The parties were ordered to bear their own costs for the expense hearing.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident in 2012, having previously been in two accidents in 2009.

The insurer argued that the applicant was pursuing Income Replacement Benefits for all three accidents and that the claim for the 2012 accident was statute-barred because the application was made more than 104 weeks after the accident.

The arbitrator found that the 2009 accidents were not part of the arbitration as they were not included in the pre-hearing letter.

The arbitrator also held that the insurer's explanation of benefits letter was not a clear and unequivocal denial, so the limitation period had not commenced.

The applicant was permitted to proceed to arbitrate the 2012 accident's IRB issue.

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

After failing to resolve disputes through mediation, the applicant applied for arbitration.

Following a series of pre-hearings where the applicant's legal representatives were removed from the record, the applicant failed to participate in a scheduled pre-hearing.

The insurer brought a verbal motion to dismiss the application.

The arbitrator granted the motion, finding the applicant's actions over the past 12 months provided proper grounds for dismissal under Rule 68.1 of the Dispute Resolution Practice Code.

The application was dismissed and the applicant was ordered to pay $1,250 in costs to the insurer.

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

The insurer denied the benefits and later brought a motion arguing the applicant was statute-barred from proceeding to arbitration because more than two years had passed since the denial.

The arbitrator found that the insurer's denial letter was clear and unambiguous, as evidenced by the applicant's subsequent participation in mediation.

Because the applicant failed to commence arbitration within two years of the denial or 90 days after mediation failed, the application for income replacement benefits was statute-barred.

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

After his legal representative was removed from the record due to a breakdown in the solicitor-client relationship, the applicant failed to participate in scheduled pre-hearings or communicate with the insurer or the tribunal.

The insurer brought a motion to dismiss the application.

The arbitrator found that the applicant had abandoned the proceeding and dismissed the application for arbitration under Rule 68.1 of the Dispute Resolution Practice Code.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and applied for statutory accident benefits from the insurer.

After the applicant's legal representative was removed from the record due to a breakdown in the solicitor-client relationship, the applicant failed to participate in the proceedings or communicate with the insurer or the arbitrator.

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

The arbitrator granted the motion, finding the application had been abandoned and was therefore frivolous and vexatious.

The application was dismissed forthwith, and the applicant was ordered to pay $500 in costs to the insurer if he makes any further claims for benefits related to the accident.

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

After his legal counsel was removed from the record due to a breakdown in the solicitor-client relationship, the applicant failed to participate in subsequent pre-hearings or respond to communications.

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

The arbitrator granted the motion, finding the applicant had not demonstrated any interest in pursuing the application, and ordered the applicant to pay $500 in costs to the insurer.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and received income replacement benefits (IRBs) until the insurer terminated them based on an orthopedic assessment.

A preliminary issue hearing was held to determine whether the application should be dismissed because the applicant failed to provide requested financial information under sections 33 and 34 of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The arbitrator found that the insurer's notice of termination was based solely on medical entitlement and did not mention suspension for non-compliance.

Therefore, the applicant was not required to provide further financial information at this stage, and the application for arbitration was allowed to proceed.

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

After her counsel was removed from the record, she failed to attend a scheduled pre-hearing teleconference.

The insurer brought a motion to dismiss the application for arbitration under Rule 68 of the Dispute Resolution Practice Code.

The arbitrator found that the applicant had abandoned her claim and dismissed the application, ordering her to pay $500 in expenses to the insurer.

The applicant was injured when he fell from a ladder, allegedly after a vehicle struck it.

The insurer denied statutory accident benefits on the basis that the incident was not a motor vehicle accident.

During the assessment phase, the insurer commissioned an engineering report.

The applicant brought a motion to compel production of the report.

The insurer claimed litigation privilege, arguing the report was prepared in anticipation of arbitration.

The arbitrator found that the report was commissioned during the good faith investigation phase, before litigation could be reasonably anticipated.

The insurer was ordered to produce the report.

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

The insurer denied the claim, arguing the applicant's policy had been cancelled for non-payment of premiums prior to the accident.

The arbitrator found that the insurer's cancellation notice was defective because it failed to provide a cash payment option as required by section 11(1.3) of O. Reg. 777/93.

As a result, the policy was not validly cancelled, and the applicant was not excluded from receiving benefits under section 31(1)(a) of the Schedule.

The applicant applied for statutory accident benefits following an alleged motor vehicle accident.

The insurer disputed the claim, alleging it was fraudulent and that the applicant was not in the vehicle.

The applicant failed to attend the preliminary issue hearing.

Based on the uncontested evidence of an independent witness who testified that the applicant was not in the vehicle, the arbitrator found the applicant was not involved in the accident.

The application for arbitration was dismissed without costs.

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

After his counsel was removed from the record, the applicant failed to communicate or participate in scheduled pre-hearings.

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

The arbitrator found that the applicant had abandoned his claims and dismissed the application as frivolous or vexatious under Rule 68 of the Dispute Resolution Practice Code, awarding $500 in expenses to the insurer.

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

After failing to participate in the arbitration process and having his counsel removed from the record, the insurer brought a motion to dismiss the application.

The arbitrator found that the applicant had abandoned his application and that it was frivolous and vexatious.

The application was dismissed, and the applicant was ordered to pay the insurer's legal expenses of $632.80.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits for a treatment plan and an orthopedic assessment.

The insurer denied the claims.

At arbitration, the arbitrator found that the applicant failed to prove the treatments and assessment were reasonable and necessary, noting a significant gap in treatment, failure to disclose a prior slip and fall injury, and lack of evidence linking the current pain to the accident.

The claims for the treatment plan, orthopedic assessment, and interest were dismissed.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and applied for a non-earner benefit, which the insurer denied due to his failure to attend four requested section 44 insurer examinations.

The insurer brought a preliminary issue motion to stay the arbitration until the applicant attended the examinations.

The arbitrator found that three of the four requested examinations (orthopedic, neurologist, and psychiatric) were reasonably necessary to evaluate the applicant's condition, but a neuropsychological assessment was not.

The arbitration was stayed pending the applicant's attendance at the three approved assessments.