Who is William J. Renahan?

William J. Renahan is a arbitrator at the Ontario Financial Services Commission - Dispute Resolution Services with 166 decisions on record from 1995 to 2013. Key areas include statutory accident benefits schedule matters (sabs), other tribunals, administrative law.

What tribunal does William J. Renahan sit on?

William J. Renahan sits on the Ontario Financial Services Commission - Dispute Resolution Services.

What areas of law does William J. Renahan decide?

William J. Renahan's most common areas include Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule matters (SABS) (166 decisions), Other Tribunals (23 decisions), Administrative Law (3 decisions). William J. Renahan has handled 166 decisions across 5 areas.

How many decisions has William J. Renahan made?

William J. Renahan has 166 decisions on record from 1995 to 2013.

Who frequently appears before William J. Renahan?

Representatives who frequently appear before William J. Renahan include Ian D. Kirby, Jonathan B. Schrieder, Mark L.J. Edwards.

William J. Renahan — Arbitrator

Elsie Smith v. Intact Insurance Company, 2013 ONFSCDRS 38

Arbitrator schedules hearing for earlier date requested by applicant to ensure timely dispute resolution.

At a pre-hearing discussion for a statutory accident benefits dispute, the parties could not agree on a hearing date.

The applicant requested dates in November 2013, while the insurer's counsel stated they were unavailable until February 2014.

The arbitrator scheduled the hearing for November 2013, emphasizing the Dispute Resolution Practice Code's goal of timely and expeditious resolution of no-fault benefits claims, and noting that systemic delays do not justify further delays for the applicant.

OFSCDRSMar 20, 2013

Harmeet Singh v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, 2012 ONFSCDRS 84

Applicant ordered to pay $1,740.01 in expenses following dismissal of time-barred housekeeping claim.

Following the dismissal of the applicant's claim for housekeeping expenses due to the expiration of the limitation period, the arbitrator determined the quantum of expenses payable to the insurer.

The insurer submitted a bill of costs for 19.34 hours at the legal aid rate, totaling $1,740.01 including disbursements.

The applicant's counsel provided no substantive submissions opposing the amount.

The arbitrator found the claimed amount reasonable and ordered the applicant to pay $1,740.01 in expenses.

OFSCDRSMay 24, 2012

Manos Hodges v. Security National Insurance Co. / Monnex Insurance Mgmt. Inc., 2012 ONFSCDRS 82

Applicant met catastrophic impairment threshold based on Glasgow Coma Scale scores of 9 despite presence of sedatives.

The Applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and applied for enhanced statutory accident benefits, claiming a catastrophic impairment due to a brain impairment resulting in a Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) score of 9 or less.

The Insurer disputed the catastrophic impairment designation.

The arbitrator found that while a GCS score of 3 during intubation and medical paralysis was untestable and could not satisfy the definition, subsequent GCS scores of 9 recorded by a nurse were valid.

Relying on the Court of Appeal's decision in Liu, the arbitrator held that the GCS test is a legal bright-line rule rather than a scientifically precise measurement, and declined to adjust the score for the potential effects of sedatives.

The arbitrator concluded the Applicant suffered a catastrophic impairment.

OFSCDRSMay 22, 2012

Harmeet Singh v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, 2012 ONFSCDRS 58

Application for arbitration of accident benefits dismissed as it was filed beyond the two-year limitation period.

The Applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and received statutory accident benefits from the Insurer.

The Insurer terminated weekly housekeeping and home maintenance benefits in September 2007.

The Applicant applied for mediation in March 2010 and arbitration in February 2011.

The Arbitrator found that both applications were filed beyond the two-year limitation period set out in the Insurance Act and the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The application for arbitration was dismissed.

OFSCDRSApr 10, 2012

Murugiyah Rajendran v. TD Home and Auto Insurance Company, 2012 ONFSCDRS 30

Unsuccessful applicant ordered to pay one-half of the insurer's arbitration expenses.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and previously denied statutory accident benefits following an arbitration hearing.

In this costs decision, the arbitrator considered whether either party was entitled to expenses.

The insurer was completely successful in the main hearing and had made a written offer to settle three days prior.

The arbitrator found the hearing took too long for claims with little merit, but noted the insurer's counsel inadvertently sent the settlement offer to the Commission before the decision was released, causing a recusal motion.

The arbitrator ordered the applicant to pay the insurer one-half of its expenses for junior counsel, subject to agreement or assessment.

OFSCDRSMar 12, 2012

Yi Qin v. Perth Insurance Company, 2012 ONFSCDRS 5

Arbitrator dismisses claims for statutory accident benefits, finding applicant's testimony regarding impairments not credible.

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

The insurer terminated housekeeping benefits and refused to pay for certain medical benefits and costs of examinations.

The arbitrator found that the applicant's testimony was not credible, noting he did not take time off work and did not mention the accident to his family doctor for two years.

The arbitrator dismissed the claims for medical benefits, housekeeping benefits, and costs of examinations, finding them not reasonable or necessary.

OFSCDRSJan 26, 2012

D'Arcy Marsh v. Intact Insurance Company, 2011 ONFSCDRS 91

Adjournment granted to allow applicant to call medical witnesses before testifying.

The applicant sought an adjournment of the hearing because a delay in starting the hearing meant his medical witnesses were no longer available to testify in his preferred order.

The insurer opposed the adjournment, arguing the applicant should testify first.

The arbitrator granted the adjournment, finding that counsel has the responsibility to present witnesses in the order they think is best, and that the psychologist's testimony was critical evidence that was unavoidably delayed.

OFSCDRSOct 18, 2011

Maria Edward v. TD Home and Auto Insurance Company, 2011 ONFSCDRS 15

Insurer awarded expenses of arbitration proceeding after successfully defending claim for chiropractic treatment.

Following the dismissal of the applicant's claim for statutory accident benefits for chiropractic treatment, the arbitrator considered the issue of expenses.

The insurer sought its expenses for the three-day hearing.

The arbitrator rejected the applicant's argument that the insurer's failure to make a written offer to settle should militate against a costs award, noting the insurer had a strong defence and that paying for treatment would only reinforce the applicant's disabled lifestyle.

The insurer was awarded its expenses of the arbitration proceeding, with the amount to be determined after further submissions.

OFSCDRSFeb 8, 2011

Mrs. S v. Economical Mutual Insurance Company, 2010 ONFSCDRS 142

Insurer awarded $8,184.54 in arbitration expenses; mileage for out-of-town counsel disallowed.

The insurer was previously awarded its expenses of the arbitration proceeding.

The parties could not agree on the amount.

The insurer claimed $8,748.50, including legal fees and disbursements.

The applicant objected to the disbursement for mileage and parking for out-of-town counsel.

The arbitrator allowed the legal fees and parking expenses but disallowed the mileage expenses, finding no reasonable justification for retaining out-of-town counsel.

The applicant was ordered to pay the insurer's expenses assessed at $8,184.54.

OFSCDRSDec 14, 2010

Mehri Ebrahimi-Nazari v. Allstate Insurance Company of Canada, 2010 ONFSCDRS 139

Application for arbitration of accident benefits dismissed as statute-barred by the two-year limitation period.

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

The insurer terminated housekeeping benefits and provided an Explanation of Benefits.

More than two years later, the applicant applied for arbitration.

The insurer raised a preliminary issue that the application was statute-barred.

The arbitrator found that the Explanation of Benefits complied with the legal requirements and that the application was filed beyond the two-year limitation period.

The application for arbitration was dismissed, and the applicant was ordered to pay the insurer's expenses.

OFSCDRSDec 8, 2010

Tello-Medina v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, 2010 ONFSCDRS 127

Parties ordered to bear their own expenses after failing to consolidate issues in earlier arbitration.

Following an arbitration where the applicant's claim for statutory accident benefits was dismissed, the arbitrator determined the issue of expenses.

Applying the criteria under section 12 of Ontario Regulation 664, the arbitrator noted that the insurer was completely successful.

However, the arbitrator found that the issues regarding the specific treatment plans could have been raised at an earlier arbitration hearing between the same parties.

Concluding that both parties used the process to frustrate the other, the arbitrator ordered that each party bear their own expenses.

OFSCDRSNov 1, 2010

Mrs. S v. Economical Mutual Insurance Company, 2010 ONFSCDRS 70

Applicant ordered to pay insurer's arbitration expenses after pursuing an unnecessary and unmeritorious claim.

Following a decision denying the applicant's claims for statutory accident benefits, the arbitrator considered the issue of expenses.

The insurer was completely successful in the main proceeding.

The arbitrator found that the applicant's claim had no merit and was unnecessary, as she had fabricated the story of her employment, although her low intellect prevented her from recognizing that her story made no sense.

Applying the criteria under section 12(2) of Ontario Regulation 664, the arbitrator ordered the applicant to pay the insurer's expenses of the arbitration proceeding, with the amount to be agreed upon or assessed.

OFSCDRSMay 31, 2010

Zully Tello-Medina v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, 2010 ONFSCDRS 49

Accident benefits claim for physiotherapy dismissed as the treatment provided was neither reasonable nor necessary.

The applicant was struck by a motor vehicle and subsequently underwent arthroscopic knee surgery.

She sought payment for $2,261.56 in physiotherapy treatment under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The insurer denied the claim, relying on an insurer's examination which concluded the knee surgery was unrelated to the accident and the therapy was unnecessary.

While the arbitrator found the knee injury was caused by the accident, the application was dismissed because the treating chiropractor's records did not demonstrate an understanding of the applicant's knee condition, rendering the treatment neither reasonable nor necessary.

OFSCDRSApr 19, 2010

Mrs. S v. Economical Mutual Insurance Company, 2010 ONFSCDRS 20

Application for accident benefits dismissed; applicant's claims of employment and housekeeping expenses found implausible and fabricated.

The applicant sought income replacement benefits and housekeeping expenses following a motor vehicle accident.

The insurer denied the claims, disputing that the applicant was employed at the time of the accident and questioning the need for housekeeping services.

The arbitrator found the applicant's evidence regarding her alleged employment at a restaurant to be implausible and fabricated, noting inconsistencies in her testimony and the lack of corroborating evidence.

The housekeeping claim was also dismissed due to inconsistent and unbelievable evidence.

Furthermore, the arbitrator held that the insurer's minor delays in responding to the application were procedural irregularities that did not prejudice the applicant, thereby dismissing the claim for a special award.

OFSCDRSFeb 12, 2010

Hamidreza Daryoosh Adami v. Wawanesa Mutual Insurance Company, 2009 ONFSCDRS 147

Arbitration expenses denied to successful applicant due to late production of highly probative evidence.

The applicant sought expenses for an arbitration proceeding regarding statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The insurer did not seek expenses.

The arbitrator reviewed the criteria under section 12 of Ontario Regulation 664.

Although the applicant achieved significant financial success and made a settlement offer lower than the final award, the arbitrator found the proceeding was unnecessary.

The applicant had failed to produce highly probative evidence regarding his employment history until shortly before or during the hearing, despite the insurer's requests six years prior.

Consequently, the arbitrator ordered that each party bear their own expenses.

OFSCDRSOct 29, 2009

Nafisa Malik v. Economical Mutual Insurance Company, 2009 ONFSCDRS 87

Parties ordered to bear their own arbitration expenses following mixed success and settlement of substantive issues.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and applied for arbitration regarding statutory accident benefits.

The parties settled the substantive issues, with the insurer agreeing to pay $5,350 for income replacement, attendant care, and housekeeping benefits.

The only remaining issue was entitlement to the expenses of the arbitration proceeding.

The arbitrator considered the criteria under section 12 of Ontario Regulation 664 and found that success was mixed and both parties could have avoided the proceeding by acting reasonably from the outset.

The arbitrator ordered that each party bear their own expenses.

OFSCDRSJun 26, 2009

Adami v. Wawanesa Mutual Insurance Company, 2009 ONFSCDRS 72

Income replacement benefits awarded to recent immigrant based on legitimate contract of employment with brother's company.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident shortly after immigrating to Canada.

He applied for income replacement benefits, relying on a written job offer from his brother's trucking company to establish a legitimate contract of employment under section 4(3) of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The insurer denied the claim, arguing the applicant lacked the English skills and licensing to perform the job.

The arbitrator found the contract was legitimate, as the parties reasonably intended for the applicant to learn English and obtain his licenses while working.

The arbitrator awarded income replacement benefits, subject to deductions for post-accident income earned from delivering pizzas, and mandatory interest on overdue payments.

The claim for a special award was dismissed because the insurer's delay was due to the applicant's late production of necessary documentation.

OFSCDRSJun 10, 2009

Jose Escobar Uribe v. Wawanesa Mutual Insurance Company, 2009 ONFSCDRS 52

Unreported income later declared on an amended tax return is excluded from income replacement benefit calculations.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and applied for income replacement benefits.

He had not reported approximately $20,000 in income on his original 2006 income tax return, but later filed an amended return to include it.

The insurer argued that under section 64.1 of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule, the unreported income should not be included in the calculation of benefits.

The arbitrator agreed, finding that the purpose of section 64.1 is to avoid complex inquiries into undeclared income, and that an amended return filed after the fact to remedy non-disclosure does not override the original return for the purpose of calculating benefits.

OFSCDRSApr 29, 2009

Toor v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, 2009 ONFSCDRS 32

Application for caregiver and housekeeping benefits dismissed due to lack of primary caregiver status and disability.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and claimed caregiver and housekeeping benefits.

The insurer terminated these benefits, and the applicant sought arbitration.

The arbitrator found that the applicant was not the primary caregiver for her child at the time of the accident, as she worked 50 hours a week and her mother provided care.

Furthermore, the applicant failed to prove a substantial inability to engage in pre-accident caregiving or housekeeping activities, especially given evidence that she had returned to work and submitted claims for periods when her mother was out of the country.

The application for arbitration was dismissed.

OFSCDRSMar 11, 2009

Mr. K v. Aviva Canada Inc., 2009 ONFSCDRS 14

Insurer ordered to pay income replacement benefits as business owner remained completely disabled from suitable employment.

The applicant, a business owner, was injured in a motor vehicle accident and received income replacement benefits for over three years.

The insurer terminated benefits, arguing the applicant could engage in suitable employment and had returned to work.

The arbitrator found that the applicant's physical and psychological impairments, including the need for hygiene assistance, prevented him from engaging in his former employment or any suitable employment.

The arbitrator ordered the insurer to pay income replacement benefits of $400 per week, plus interest on overdue amounts.

OFSCDRSFeb 4, 2009

Elsie Smith v. Intact Insurance Company, 2013 ONFSCDRS 38

Harmeet Singh v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, 2012 ONFSCDRS 84

Manos Hodges v. Security National Insurance Co. / Monnex Insurance Mgmt. Inc., 2012 ONFSCDRS 82

Harmeet Singh v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, 2012 ONFSCDRS 58

Murugiyah Rajendran v. TD Home and Auto Insurance Company, 2012 ONFSCDRS 30

Yi Qin v. Perth Insurance Company, 2012 ONFSCDRS 5

D'Arcy Marsh v. Intact Insurance Company, 2011 ONFSCDRS 91

Maria Edward v. TD Home and Auto Insurance Company, 2011 ONFSCDRS 15

Mrs. S v. Economical Mutual Insurance Company, 2010 ONFSCDRS 142

Mehri Ebrahimi-Nazari v. Allstate Insurance Company of Canada, 2010 ONFSCDRS 139

Tello-Medina v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, 2010 ONFSCDRS 127

Mrs. S v. Economical Mutual Insurance Company, 2010 ONFSCDRS 70

Zully Tello-Medina v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, 2010 ONFSCDRS 49

Mrs. S v. Economical Mutual Insurance Company, 2010 ONFSCDRS 20

Hamidreza Daryoosh Adami v. Wawanesa Mutual Insurance Company, 2009 ONFSCDRS 147

Nafisa Malik v. Economical Mutual Insurance Company, 2009 ONFSCDRS 87

Adami v. Wawanesa Mutual Insurance Company, 2009 ONFSCDRS 72

Jose Escobar Uribe v. Wawanesa Mutual Insurance Company, 2009 ONFSCDRS 52

Toor v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, 2009 ONFSCDRS 32

Mr. K v. Aviva Canada Inc., 2009 ONFSCDRS 14

assisted by

for Allstate Insurance Company of Canada

for Aviva Canada Inc.

for AXA Insurance (Canada)

for Belair Insurance Company Inc.

for Citadel General Assurance Company

for Commercial Union Assurance Company

for Continental Casualty Company

for Coseco Insurance Co./HB Group/Direct Protect

for Dominion of Canada General Insurance Company

for Donna Griscti

for Economical Mutual Insurance Company

for Farmers' Mutual Insurance Company

for GAN

for Guarantee Company of North America

for Guardian

for Halifax

for Halifax Insurance

for Halifax Insurance Company

for himself

for ING Insurance Company of Canada

for Intact Insurance Company

for Khalid Shirzad, Sharifa Shirzad, Angela Akbari and Ali Akbari

for Kingsway General Insurance Company

for Kingsway Gen. Insurance Co.

for Liberty Insurance Company of Canada

for Liberty Mutual Insurance Company

for Lombard General Insurance Company of Canada

for Lou Ferro

for Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Company

for Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Company / Kemper Canada

for Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Company/KemperCanada

for Maplex

for M D

for M. D.

for Mr. Adami

for Mr. Agyem

for Mr. and Mrs. Meehan

for Mr. Angolano

for Mr. Antony

for Mr. Campbell

for Mr. D'Angelo

for Mr. Federow

for Mr. George

for Mr. Gill

for Mr. Giordano

for Mr. Harris

for Mr. Hernandez

for Mr. Hodges

for Mr. Howard

for Mr. Ives

for Mr. K

for Mr. Kim

for Mr. Kirby

for Mr. Konstantakos

for Mr. Kristensen

for Mr. Krzysztof

for Mr. Kulasekarampillai

for Mr. M

for Mr. Marsh