Jessica Kowalski

The applicant claimed statutory accident benefits following an alleged motor vehicle accident.

The insurer raised a preliminary issue regarding whether an 'accident' occurred.

After multiple adjournments and the removal of the applicant's counsel, the applicant failed to attend the peremptory preliminary issue hearing.

The arbitrator proceeded in her absence pursuant to the Statutory Powers Procedure Act and the Dispute Resolution Practice Code.

The application for arbitration was dismissed as the applicant failed to establish she was injured in an accident.

The applicant claimed statutory accident benefits following an alleged motor vehicle collision.

The insurer denied the claim, arguing that the collision did not occur as reported or was staged.

After hearing evidence from the parties, the investigating police officer, and accident reconstruction experts, the arbitrator found significant inconsistencies between the physical evidence and the applicant's testimony.

The arbitrator accepted the insurer's expert evidence that the vehicles' damage and final resting positions were inconsistent with the reported collision.

The application was dismissed as the applicant failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that an 'accident' occurred.

The applicant sought payment of $20,242.82 for a catastrophic impairment rebuttal report following a motor vehicle accident.

The insurer denied payment on the basis that the report was not provided within the 80 business day time limit set out in section 42.1(3) of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The arbitrator found that the applicant failed to prove the report was provided to the insurer within the required timeframe and failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the delay under section 31.

The application for arbitration was dismissed.

The insurer brought a motion to stay the arbitration proceeding until the applicant attended a psychiatric assessment scheduled under section 42 of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The applicant had been injured in a motor vehicle accident and suffered from chronic pain.

The insurer requested the assessment to respond to a psycho-vocational report obtained by the applicant.

The arbitrator found that the insurer had ample opportunity to investigate the applicant's chronic pain earlier and that the late request was primarily for hearing preparation rather than adjusting the claim.

The motion was denied.

The insurer brought a motion to dismiss or stay the arbitration proceeding on the grounds that the applicant had commenced both an arbitration and a Superior Court action for different benefits arising from the same motor vehicle accident and the same failed mediation.

The arbitrator held that section 281 of the Insurance Act, consistent with the rule against multiple proceedings, requires an insured person to choose a single forum for all issues in dispute arising from a single mediation.

The arbitration was stayed pending the outcome of the court case, with leave for the applicant to amend her application to include all issues if she chooses to proceed in arbitration.