Ellen Fry

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident but failed to attend a pre-hearing discussion and the subsequent arbitration hearing.

The arbitrator proceeded in the applicant's absence pursuant to Rule 37.7 of the Dispute Resolution Practice Code.

As the applicant bore the onus of proving entitlement and presented no evidence, the application was dismissed.

The insurer was awarded $675.00 in expenses under Rule 78.

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

After initiating the arbitration proceeding, the applicant failed to participate for over two years, did not attend required insurer's examinations, and was unresponsive to her own counsel, who was subsequently removed from the record.

The insurer brought a motion to dismiss the proceeding.

The arbitrator dismissed the application under Rule 68.1 of the Dispute Resolution Practice Code, finding the proceeding to be frivolous, vexatious, or commenced in bad faith, and awarded expenses to the insurer.

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

Following the applicant's death, his counsel submitted an Application for Mediation signed only by counsel, unaware of the applicant's passing.

The insurer argued the application was invalid as it lacked the claimant's signature and was not properly authorized.

The arbitrator held that the absence of a claimant signature was a mere defect in form that did not invalidate the proceeding.

Furthermore, the applicant's wife, acting continuously under a Power of Attorney and subsequently as executrix, had the authority to and did authorize the application.

The preliminary issue was resolved in favour of the applicant.

The applicant sought non-earner benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The insurer denied the benefits based on an independent chiropractic examination.

The insurer argued that the applicant failed to commence a mediation proceeding within the two-year limitation period under section 56 of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The applicant had requested to add the issue to an existing mediation via letter before the limitation period expired, which was common practice, but did not file a formal Application for Mediation until after the deadline.

The Arbitrator applied the Dispute Resolution Practice Code's rules on broad interpretation and defects in form, finding that the letter validly commenced the mediation proceeding.

The applicant was not barred from proceeding with her claim.

The applicant, a five-year-old child, was injured when she fell out of a parked fire truck while attending a birthday party.

She sought statutory accident benefits from the insurer, who denied the claim on the basis that the incident was not an 'accident' under s. 3(1) of the Schedule.

The arbitrator found that the fire truck was being used as a display for entertainment and educational purposes, not as a motor vehicle.

Therefore, the incident did not meet the purpose test for the normal use or operation of an automobile.

The application for accident benefits was dismissed.