Lloyd (J.R.) Richards

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

After commencing arbitration, the applicant failed to attend multiple pre-hearings and could not be located by his counsel, who was subsequently permitted to withdraw.

The arbitrator issued a notice of intention to dismiss the application as frivolous and vexatious under Rule 68 of the Dispute Resolution Practice Code.

Receiving no response, the arbitrator dismissed the application, finding it had been abandoned.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and applied for a determination of catastrophic impairment.

The insurer denied the application, and the applicant subsequently submitted two more applications for the same determination more than two years later, arguing that a change in the law permitted re-application.

The insurer argued the arbitration was time-barred under s. 281(5) of the Insurance Act.

The arbitrator held that the two-year limitation period applies to catastrophic impairment determinations and runs from the date of a valid refusal.

Because the applicant's subsequent applications were based on the same criteria and did not demonstrate a change in condition, the limitation period was not reset.

The application for arbitration was dismissed as time-barred.

The insurer brought a preliminary motion to adjourn the arbitration hearing pending the applicant's attendance at independent medical examinations by a psychiatrist and a physiatrist, and for document production.

The arbitrator dismissed the request for an adjournment, finding that the insurer's request for examinations 15 months after receiving new medical information and after filing its response to the arbitration application was unreasonable and intended solely to bolster its case at the hearing.

The arbitrator ordered the exchange of specific documents, including OHIP summaries, clinical notes, and the insurer's accident benefits file.

The applicant sought expenses following an arbitration for statutory accident benefits where he was awarded $9,258.33.

The insurer argued it was entitled to expenses for a successful preliminary issue hearing and an unnecessary recusal motion brought by the applicant.

The arbitrator found the applicant was substantially successful overall and had made a reasonable offer to settle.

However, the insurer was entitled to set off its expenses for the preliminary issue hearing, the recusal motion, and the applicant resiling from an agreement.

The arbitrator awarded the applicant net expenses of $7,670.22.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits after sustaining burn injuries while repairing his wife's van.

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

The arbitrator found that repairing a vehicle in a garage does not constitute the use or operation of an automobile.

Furthermore, the use of an air compressor to repair the vehicle was an intervening act that broke the chain of causation.

The application for benefits was dismissed.