Richard Feldman

Following a preliminary decision finding that the applicant was not involved in an 'accident' as defined in the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule, the arbitrator dismissed the remainder of the applicant's claims.

The insurer sought its expenses of the arbitration, claiming approximately $17,000.

The arbitrator found that the case raised novel issues regarding whether repairing a vehicle constitutes a 'use' of the vehicle, and therefore declined to award the insurer its full expenses.

However, the arbitrator ordered the applicant to pay $500 for the unnecessary expense of having the insurer's counsel return for a second day of hearing to accommodate the applicant's request for additional time to prepare closing arguments.

The Insurer brought a motion to stay 15 FSCO arbitration proceedings, including this one, pending the resolution of a Superior Court action it commenced against several assessment facilities for alleged fraud and unjust enrichment.

The Insurer argued that proceeding at FSCO would result in a multiplicity of proceedings and inconsistent findings.

The Arbitrator applied the RJR-MacDonald test and dismissed the motion, finding that the Insurer failed to establish that it would suffer irreparable harm or that proceeding at FSCO would constitute an abuse of process.

The Arbitrator noted that the insured persons were not named as defendants in the court action and that staying their accident benefits claims would cause presumed prejudice.

The insurer brought a motion to stay the applicant's arbitration proceeding for statutory accident benefits.

The insurer argued a stay was warranted because it had commenced a civil action against the rehabilitation facilities used by the applicant for alleged fraud, and alternatively because the applicant refused to submit to an examination under oath.

The arbitrator dismissed the motion, finding the insurer failed to establish irreparable harm or an abuse of process under the RJR-MacDonald test.

The arbitrator also held that while an insurer's right to an examination under oath is not extinguished by litigation, a stay of proceedings is an extraordinary remedy that was not justified on the evidence.

The Insurer brought a motion to stay the Applicant's arbitration proceeding for statutory accident benefits.

The Insurer argued a stay was warranted because it had commenced a civil action against the rehabilitation facilities for alleged fraud, and alternatively, because the Applicant refused to submit to an examination under oath.

The Arbitrator dismissed the motion, finding the Insurer failed to establish irreparable harm or that a stay was necessary to prevent an abuse of process under the RJR-MacDonald test.

The Arbitrator also held that while an insurer's right to an examination under oath is not extinguished by litigation, a stay is an extraordinary remedy that was not justified on the evidence.

The Insurer brought a motion to stay the arbitration proceedings in this and fourteen other cases, arguing that it had commenced a civil action against several rehabilitation facilities for alleged fraud and unjust enrichment.

The Insurer sought a stay pending the outcome of the court action to avoid a multiplicity of proceedings and inconsistent findings.

The Arbitrator applied the RJR-MacDonald test and found that the Insurer failed to establish irreparable harm or that proceeding would constitute an abuse of process.

The motion for a stay was dismissed.

The Insurer brought a motion to stay the applicant's arbitration for statutory accident benefits, along with 14 other similar cases, pending the resolution of a civil action it commenced against several assessment facilities for alleged fraud and unjust enrichment.

The Insurer argued that proceeding with the arbitrations would result in a multiplicity of proceedings and potential inconsistent findings.

The Arbitrator applied the RJR-MacDonald test for a stay of proceedings and found that the Insurer failed to establish that it would suffer irreparable harm or that allowing the cases to proceed would constitute an abuse of process.

The motion for a stay was dismissed.

The Insurer brought a motion to stay the Applicant's arbitration proceeding, along with 14 other similar cases, pending the resolution of a Superior Court action it commenced against several assessment facilities for alleged fraud and unjust enrichment.

The Insurer argued that proceeding at FSCO would result in a multiplicity of proceedings and potential inconsistent findings.

The Arbitrator applied the RJR-MacDonald test and dismissed the motion, finding that the Insurer failed to establish that it would suffer irreparable harm or that proceeding would constitute an abuse of process.

The Arbitrator noted that the court action could take years and the Applicant would be prejudiced by the delay.

The Insurer brought a motion to stay the applicant's arbitration proceeding, along with 14 other similar cases, pending the resolution of a civil action it commenced against several treatment facilities for alleged fraud and unjust enrichment.

The Insurer argued that proceeding with the arbitrations would result in a multiplicity of proceedings and inconsistent findings.

The Arbitrator applied the RJR-MacDonald test and dismissed the motion, finding that the Insurer failed to establish that it would suffer irreparable harm or that allowing the cases to proceed would constitute an abuse of process.

The Arbitrator noted that the civil action could take years to resolve and that the applicant would be prejudiced by the delay.

The Insurer brought a motion to stay the Applicant's claim for statutory accident benefits at FSCO, along with 14 other similar cases.

The Insurer argued that a stay was necessary because it had commenced a civil action against several rehabilitation facilities for alleged fraud and unjust enrichment, and the Applicant's claims relied on services from those facilities.

The Arbitrator dismissed the motion, finding that the Insurer failed to meet the RJR-MacDonald test for a stay.

Specifically, the Insurer did not establish that it would suffer irreparable harm or that allowing the FSCO proceedings to continue would constitute an abuse of process.

The Insurer brought a motion for a stay of proceedings in this and fourteen other cases, arguing that it had commenced a court action against several rehabilitation facilities for alleged fraud and unjust enrichment.

The Insurer sought to stay the FSCO proceedings until the conclusion of its court action to avoid a multiplicity of proceedings and inconsistent findings.

The Arbitrator applied the RJR-MacDonald test and found that the Insurer failed to establish irreparable harm or that proceeding would constitute an abuse of process.

The motion for a stay was dismissed.

The Insurer brought a motion to stay the arbitration proceeding, along with 14 other related cases, pending the resolution of a civil action it commenced against several rehabilitation facilities for alleged fraud and unjust enrichment.

The Insurer argued that a stay was necessary to prevent a multiplicity of proceedings and an abuse of process.

The Arbitrator applied the RJR-MacDonald test and dismissed the motion, finding that the Insurer failed to establish that it would suffer irreparable harm or that allowing the arbitration to proceed would constitute an abuse of process.

The Arbitrator noted that the civil action involved different parties and issues, and that the Insurer could still challenge the credibility of the facilities' evidence in the arbitration.

The Insurer brought a motion to stay the applicant's arbitration for statutory accident benefits, along with 14 other similar cases, pending the resolution of a civil action it commenced against several treatment facilities for alleged fraud and unjust enrichment.

The Insurer argued that proceeding with the arbitrations would result in a multiplicity of proceedings and potential inconsistent findings.

The Arbitrator applied the RJR-MacDonald test and dismissed the motion, finding that the Insurer failed to establish that it would suffer irreparable harm or that allowing the cases to proceed would constitute an abuse of process.

The Arbitrator noted that the civil action could take years to resolve and that the insured persons were not named as defendants in that action.

The insurer brought a motion to stay the FSCO arbitration proceedings of the applicant and fourteen others, arguing that it had commenced a civil action against several rehabilitation facilities for alleged fraud and unjust enrichment.

The insurer sought the stay to avoid a multiplicity of proceedings and inconsistent findings.

The arbitrator applied the RJR-MacDonald test and found that the insurer failed to establish irreparable harm or that proceeding would constitute an abuse of process.

The motion for a stay was dismissed.

The Insurer brought a motion to stay the Applicant's arbitration proceeding, along with 14 other similar cases, pending the resolution of a civil action it commenced against several rehabilitation facilities for alleged fraud and unjust enrichment.

The Insurer argued that proceeding with the arbitrations would result in a multiplicity of proceedings and potential inconsistent findings.

The Arbitrator applied the RJR-MacDonald test and dismissed the motion, finding that the Insurer failed to establish that it would suffer irreparable harm or that proceeding with the arbitrations would constitute an abuse of process.

The Arbitrator noted that the civil action could take years to resolve and that the Applicant would be prejudiced by the delay.

The insurer brought a motion to stay the applicant's claim for statutory accident benefits, along with 14 other similar claims, pending the resolution of a civil action it commenced against several rehabilitation facilities for alleged fraud and unjust enrichment.

The insurer argued that proceeding at FSCO would result in a multiplicity of proceedings and inconsistent findings.

The arbitrator applied the RJR-MacDonald test and dismissed the motion, finding that the insurer failed to establish that it would suffer irreparable harm or that allowing the case to proceed would constitute an abuse of process.

The arbitrator noted that the applicant was not a party to the civil action and would be prejudiced by a delay.

The insurer brought a motion to stay the applicant's arbitration proceeding for statutory accident benefits, along with 14 other similar cases.

The insurer argued that a stay was necessary because it had commenced a civil action against the treatment facilities involved in the claims, alleging fraud and unjust enrichment.

The arbitrator applied the RJR-MacDonald test for a stay of proceedings and found that the insurer failed to establish that it would suffer irreparable harm or that allowing the arbitration to proceed would constitute an abuse of process.

The motion for a stay was dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including medical, attendant care, and housekeeping benefits.

The arbitrator found the applicant's credibility severely compromised due to material misrepresentations, inflated claims, and failure to provide accurate medical histories to his assessors.

The applicant admitted to submitting claims for periods when he had no symptoms and required no assistance.

The arbitrator gave little weight to the applicant's medical expert due to incomplete information and bias against the Pre-approved Framework (PAF).

Preferring the insurer's assessments, the arbitrator dismissed all of the applicant's claims for accident benefits.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits after falling from the hood of a truck while performing body work repairs.

The insurer denied the claim, arguing the incident was not an 'accident' under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The arbitrator held that repairing a vehicle does not constitute a 'use' of the vehicle within the meaning of the Schedule.

Furthermore, the applicant's injuries were not directly caused by the use or operation of the truck.

The preliminary issue was resolved in favour of the insurer, and the claim was dismissed.

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

After failing to attend a scheduled pre-hearing discussion without excuse, the applicant's counsel successfully moved to be removed from the record.

The applicant again failed to attend the resumed pre-hearing discussion.

The insurer brought a motion to dismiss the application as abandoned and an abuse of process.

The arbitrator granted the motion, finding that permitting the matter to proceed would constitute an abuse of process, and ordered the applicant to pay $750 in expenses to the insurer.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits for caregiving, attendant care, and housekeeping.

At the arbitration hearing, the self-represented applicant called no witnesses and produced no documentary or medical evidence to support his claims.

The arbitrator found that the applicant failed to meet his evidentiary burden to establish a substantial inability to perform his pre-accident activities.

The application was dismissed in its entirety, and the applicant was ordered to pay $2,000 in expenses to the insurer.