M.P. Richardson

The insurer appealed an arbitrator's order requiring it to pay the insured $600 per week in statutory accident benefits and sought a stay of the order pending the appeal under section 283(6) of the Insurance Act.

The Director's Delegate determined that the insurer bore the onus of establishing why a stay should be granted, based on factors including the bona fides of the appeal, the substance of the grounds, and hardship to the parties.

Balancing the insured's financial hardship against the insurer's risk of non-recovery, the Delegate granted a partial stay for arrears prior to February 4, 1992, but ordered the insurer to pay the ongoing $600 weekly benefits pending the appeal's disposition.

The insurer appealed an arbitrator's order requiring it to provide the catastrophically injured insured with a suitably modified mini-van under section 6(1)(f) of the No-Fault Benefits Schedule.

The insurer argued that transportation expenses were exhaustively covered by section 6(1)(d) and that a van was not 'necessary' for rehabilitation.

The insured cross-appealed, seeking a full-size custom van and a special award.

The Director's Delegate dismissed the insurer's appeal, finding that section 6(1)(f) authorized the provision of a motor vehicle and that a broad definition of rehabilitation included psychological adjustment and independence.

The cross-appeal for a full-size van was also dismissed, as the mini-van was deemed a reasonable expense.

The Director's Delegate refused to admit fresh evidence on the special award issue, finding it could have been adduced at the original hearing.