Janice Mackintosh

The applicant, a university student, was injured in a motor vehicle accident while a passenger in a vehicle insured by Axa Insurance.

He applied for no-fault benefits from both Axa and his mother's insurer, Economical Mutual.

The issue was whether the applicant was 'principally dependent for financial support' on his mother, which would make Economical responsible.

The arbitrator conducted a detailed analysis of the applicant's expenses and financial resources, including student loans, employment income, and Canada Pension Plan orphan benefits.

The arbitrator concluded that while the mother made the single greatest contribution to his support, the applicant's other financial resources were greater than her contribution.

Therefore, he was not principally dependent on his mother, and Axa Insurance was responsible for paying the no-fault benefits.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and received weekly income benefits until the insurer terminated them.

She applied for arbitration, claiming ongoing weekly income benefits and reimbursement for various medical, rehabilitation, and care expenses.

The arbitrator found that the applicant suffered from chronic pain resulting from the accident, which substantially disabled her from performing the essential tasks of her employment as a laboratory manager until August 14, 1992.

After that date, surveillance evidence and functional capacity evaluations demonstrated she was no longer substantially disabled.

The arbitrator awarded weekly income benefits for the closed period, along with specific supplementary medical, rehabilitation, and care expenses, and arbitration expenses.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and received no-fault benefits until they were terminated by the insurer.

The parties attended mediation, and the mediator issued a report stating the issues were settled.

The applicant disputed the settlement and applied for arbitration.

The insurer raised a preliminary objection, arguing the matter was settled.

The arbitrator held that an arbitrator has jurisdiction under the Insurance Act to determine whether a binding settlement was reached.

The arbitrator found that no binding agreement existed due to a misunderstanding between the parties, despite the applicant having cashed the settlement cheques.

The applicant was permitted to proceed to arbitration but was ordered to repay the settlement funds mistakenly paid by the insurer.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and received weekly non-income benefits until they were terminated by the insurer.

The applicant sought mediation and then arbitration, claiming entitlement to weekly benefits for an extended period due to neck pain, insomnia, and nightmares.

The arbitrator found that the applicant suffered a substantial inability to perform essential tasks for a limited period and awarded benefits for that time.

The insurer's claim for repayment of benefits was dismissed due to lack of evidence.

The applicant was also awarded prescription costs and arbitration expenses.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and claimed reimbursement for housekeeping and babysitting services under section 6(1)(f) of the No-Fault Benefits Schedule.

The insurer refused to pay, arguing that section 13 No Income and Primary Caregiver Benefits was the exclusive source of recovery.

The arbitrator found that the services provided for 49 weeks were for personal care, not housekeeping or babysitting, and deferred the issue to be considered under section 7 Care Benefits.

However, the arbitrator awarded $900 for 4.5 weeks of babysitting services provided while the applicant was hospitalized, finding that receipt of section 13 benefits did not preclude recovery under section 6(1)(f).

The Applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and received statutory accident benefits until the Insurer terminated them.

The parties attended mediation, and the mediator issued a report stating the issues were settled.

The Applicant disputed the settlement and applied for arbitration.

The Insurer raised a preliminary objection, arguing the matter could not proceed to arbitration because mediation had not failed.

The Applicant sought to introduce evidence of discussions held during mediation to prove no settlement was reached.

The arbitrator held that while the mediator's report is not conclusive, evidence of statements made during mediation is privileged and inadmissible without the consent of the Commissioner.