The applicant sought judicial review of a Director's Delegate decision confirming an Arbitrator's finding that he was not catastrophically impaired following a motor vehicle accident.
The applicant argued the Arbitrator erred in law by relying on surveillance evidence, the applicant's presentation at the hearing, and a psychiatrist's report.
The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the issues raised were questions of fact and the weighing of evidence, not errors of law, and that the Director's Delegate's decision was reasonable.
