Andrew Suboch

The insurer sought an assessment of expenses after an arbitrator previously ordered a paralegal to personally pay the insurer's expenses for commencing an unauthorized arbitration on behalf of the applicant.

The insurer claimed expenses on a substantial indemnity basis.

The arbitrator found that she lacked the authority to award expenses on a substantial indemnity basis under the Insurance Act or the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, as costs are limited to Legal Aid rates under the Dispute Resolution Practice Code.

The insurer's expenses were assessed and ordered to be paid by the paralegal in the amount of $2,910.41.

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

The insurer denied the claim for treatment expenses.

The applicant applied for mediation and subsequently arbitration.

The insurer raised a preliminary issue that the application for arbitration was filed beyond the two-year limitation period under section 281(5) of the Insurance Act.

The arbitrator found that a letter from the applicant's paralegal representative constituted an admission of actual notice of the insurer's refusal to pay benefits.

As the applicant failed to commence mediation within two years of this refusal, the application for arbitration was time-barred.

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

The insurer refused payment, and the applicant filed an application for arbitration within the two-year limitation period.

However, the application was filed on an outdated form.

The Commission mistakenly notified the applicant's former counsel of the defect instead of his current counsel, causing a delay in filing the corrected form until after the limitation period expired.

The arbitrator held that the initial filing within the limitation period was sufficient to start the process, and the defect in form did not invalidate the proceeding.

The applicant was permitted to proceed to arbitration.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and subsequently signed a full and final release settling her claims for statutory accident benefits for $16,750.

She later sought to proceed with arbitration, arguing the settlement was unenforceable due to a clerical error regarding the accident date, inadequate disclosure of the commuted value of benefits under the Settlement Regulation, and mistaken assumptions.

The Arbitrator held that the clerical error was subject to rectification, the applicant failed to prove the settlement was improvident or based on a mistaken assumption, and the insurer's disclosure statement strictly complied with the Settlement Regulation by providing the commuted value based on maximum policy limits.

The request to proceed with arbitration was denied.