Jeff Musson

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

After his counsel was removed from the record, the applicant failed to respond to communications from the arbitrator and did not attend the motion hearing.

The insurer brought a motion to dismiss the application.

The arbitrator found that the applicant had effectively abandoned his claim and dismissed the application for arbitration without costs.

The applicant failed to attend his scheduled arbitration hearing for statutory accident benefits.

His representative indicated he had lost contact with the applicant, who had likely returned to his home country, and requested an adjournment.

The insurer opposed the adjournment and moved to dismiss the application with costs.

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

The application was dismissed, and the insurer was awarded $1,432.36 in expenses.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought attendant care benefits from his insurer.

The applicant claimed that his wife and son provided attendant care services.

The insurer paid an initial amount but denied further benefits on the basis that the service providers had not demonstrated an economic loss.

The arbitrator found that the son was receiving income replacement benefits and the wife did not substantiate an economic loss from her employment.

The claim for attendant care benefits was dismissed.

The applicant failed to attend her scheduled arbitration hearing.

Her counsel brought a motion to be removed from the record due to a breakdown in the solicitor-client relationship and an inability to contact the applicant.

The arbitrator granted the motion to remove counsel.

The insurer requested that the application for arbitration be dismissed with costs.

The arbitrator dismissed the application due to the applicant's failure to attend and meet her onus of proof, and awarded $1,452.61 in expenses to the insurer.

The applicants, two minors injured in a motor vehicle accident, sought a special award under s. 282(10) of the Insurance Act, alleging the insurer unreasonably withheld or delayed payment of statutory accident benefits.

Prior to the hearing, all substantive issues regarding medical benefits and interest were settled.

The arbitrator dismissed the claim for a special award, finding no evidence that the insurer mishandled the file or acted in bad faith.

The insurer had relied on independent medical examinations that differed from the applicants' family doctor's recommendations, which constituted a mere difference of opinion rather than unreasonable withholding of benefits.

The insurer was awarded its expenses for the arbitration hearing.

The applicant sought to withdraw her application for accident benefits at the start of a preliminary issue hearing.

The insurer consented to the withdrawal but sought expenses, arguing the claim was time-barred, frivolous, and vexatious.

Evidence revealed the applicant had submitted falsified bank statements to support her claim for income replacement benefits, and her paralegal representative had pursued the time-barred claim while failing to comply with production requests.

The arbitrator granted the withdrawal and ordered the applicant to pay $18,871.40 in expenses, while ordering her representative to personally pay $838.96 in expenses for his unprofessional conduct.

The Applicant sought statutory accident benefits after slipping and falling on ice at a gas station while walking around her parked vehicle to refuel it.

The Insurer denied the claim on the basis that the incident was not an 'accident' under the Schedule.

The Arbitrator found that the incident failed both the purpose and causation branches of the two-part test, as the vehicle was turned off, the Applicant had fully disembarked, and the slip and fall on ice was not a risk normally associated with motoring.

The Applicant's estoppel argument was also rejected.

The claim was dismissed.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought ongoing income replacement benefits (IRBs) after the insurer terminated them.

The arbitrator found the applicant lacked credibility, noting inconsistencies between her testimony, her reported pain, and the extensive medical imaging which showed no abnormalities.

Multiple independent medical examinations concluded there was no physical or psychological barrier preventing her return to work.

The arbitrator held that the applicant failed to prove she suffered a substantial inability to perform her pre-accident employment as a personal support worker, nor did she meet the post-104 week test of a complete inability to engage in suitable employment.

The claims for IRBs and interest were dismissed, and the insurer was awarded its expenses.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought income replacement benefits (IRBs) and attendant care benefits from his insurer.

The insurer paid IRBs at a rate of $11.00 per week based on a forensic accounting report, which the applicant disputed, claiming $246.40 per week.

The arbitrator found the applicant's testimony regarding his business income and return to work dates lacked credibility and accepted the insurer's expert accounting evidence.

The claim for attendant care benefits was also dismissed, as the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline and his testimony regarding his need for care was inconsistent and not credible.

Claims for interest and a special award were consequently dismissed, and the insurer was awarded its expenses.

The Applicant was rendered a quadriplegic after jumping into a shallow lake from the tailgate of a parked pick-up truck during a late-night social gathering.

She applied for statutory accident benefits, but the Insurer denied the claim, arguing the incident did not meet the definition of an "accident" under the Schedule.

The Arbitrator applied the Amos two-part test and found that using the truck bed for recreational "tailgating" and disembarking from it into the water constituted an ordinary use of the vehicle.

Furthermore, the Arbitrator concluded that disembarking from the truck was a direct cause of the Applicant's injuries with no intervening acts.

The Arbitrator ruled that the incident was an accident and the Applicant was entitled to claim benefits.

The applicant failed to attend multiple scheduled pre-hearings, including a final mandatory in-person pre-hearing.

The arbitrator dismissed the application for arbitration without a hearing under Rule 68 of the Dispute Resolution Practice Code, finding the application to be frivolous, vexatious, or commenced in bad faith due to the applicant's failure to participate.

The insurer's request for costs was denied.

The applicant was injured in an ATV accident in British Columbia and sought statutory accident benefits under his Ontario automobile insurance policy.

The insurer denied the claim on the basis that an ATV is not an 'automobile' under the SABS.

The arbitrator applied the lex loci delicti principle, finding that British Columbia law governed the incident.

Under British Columbia law, the ATV was not required to be insured under a motor vehicle liability policy.

Consequently, the ATV did not meet the definition of an automobile under the ordinary parlance test, and the incident was not an 'accident' under the SABS.

The application was dismissed.

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

After his counsel was removed from the record, the self-represented applicant failed to properly sign settlement documents despite multiple extensions.

The applicant subsequently failed to attend the scheduled arbitration hearing.

The arbitrator dismissed the application for arbitration due to insufficient evidence to meet the burden of proof and ordered the applicant to pay the insurer's costs of $1,334.63.