Allan Wynperle

The applicant, injured in a motor vehicle accident, sought statutory accident benefits from the insurer.

At a pre-hearing discussion, the applicant requested that the insurer disclose whether it possessed any surveillance evidence and, if so, to elect whether it intended to rely on it within 60 days.

The insurer refused, arguing that the Dispute Resolution Practice Code did not permit early disclosure orders.

The arbitrator held that section 22(1) of the Insurance Act and the Statutory Powers Procedure Act grant arbitrators the discretion to order the production of documents and alter timelines to prevent unfair surprise.

The arbitrator ordered the insurer to disclose the existence of any surveillance forthwith and to make its election on reliance within 60 days.

The Applicant was injured in a rear-end motor vehicle accident and received weekly income replacement benefits.

The Insurer terminated these benefits based on a report from a chiropractor acting as a designated assessment centre, who admitted the Applicant's temporomandibular joint injury was beyond his expertise but nonetheless concluded she was not physically disabled.

The Applicant sought arbitration for ongoing benefits and a special award.

The Arbitrator found that the Applicant remained disabled until December 4, 1995, after which her ongoing issues were caused by her failure to follow medical advice to stop working late nights as a karaoke hostess.

The Arbitrator awarded income replacement benefits for the period of disability and granted a $2,000 special award under section 282(10) of the Insurance Act, finding the Insurer acted unreasonably in terminating benefits based on an assessor who lacked the expertise to evaluate the specific impairment.