A. Fabio Longo

The insurer appealed an Arbitrator's decision finding that the insured sustained a catastrophic impairment due to a mental or behavioural disorder.

The insurer argued the Arbitrator erred in law by applying a quantitative formula to the definition of marked impairment and misapprehended the evidence.

The Director's Delegate dismissed the appeal, holding that the Arbitrator properly applied a qualitative and contextual assessment of the insured's adaptability domain.

The Delegate further noted that the appeal process is restricted to questions of law, and it is not the Delegate's role to reweigh the evidence or substitute findings of fact.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment order dismissing a motor vehicle negligence claim.

The motion judge found that the appellant made a left-hand turn facing a yellow light in front of an oncoming truck driven by the respondent, who did not run a red light as alleged.

The motion judge concluded there was no genuine issue requiring a trial regarding the respondent's responsibility for the accident.

The appellant argued the motion judge reversed the evidentiary burden and erred in granting summary judgment.

The Court of Appeal upheld the summary judgment, finding the motion judge correctly applied the burden of proof and the appellant failed to meet the onus that shifted to her to demonstrate contributory negligence.

The applicant brought a motion to remove the insurer's counsel, alleging a conflict of interest because the firm also represented the insurer in the accident benefits claim of her husband (a non-party).

The applicant also sought to exclude a medical report from her husband's file that the insurer intended to use in her arbitration.

The Arbitrator held that the medical report was inadmissible because the husband had not consented to its use in his wife's arbitration, and the insurer's privacy policy and PIPEDA protected his personal information.

However, the Arbitrator declined to remove the insurer's counsel, finding no conflict of interest as the firm had never acted for the applicant or her husband, and there was no risk of prejudice to the insurer.

The insurer brought a motion to stay the arbitration proceedings until the insured attended in-person insurer examinations regarding catastrophic impairment.

The insured had delayed providing his responding medical reports for three years and then refused to attend further insurer examinations, arguing they were intrusive and unnecessary.

The arbitrator found that the insurer's request was reasonable and necessary given the passage of time and the overarching principle of procedural fairness.

The arbitration was stayed until the insured attends the examinations.