Bassanio Ghose

The respondent was injured in an automobile accident and, three weeks later, suffered severe burn injuries after attempting suicide by setting himself on fire.

He claimed psychological treatment expenses, which the insurer denied on the basis that the treatment related to the suicide attempt and pre-existing problems, not the accident.

An arbitrator ordered the insurer to pay, finding the accident triggered the suicide attempt.

On appeal, the Director's Delegate found no error in the arbitrator's legal analysis that a suicide attempt due to accident-related depression could be covered.

However, the appeal was allowed and the matter remitted for rehearing because the arbitrator failed to address critical gaps and contradictions in the evidence regarding the causal link between the accident and the suicide attempt.

The applicant was struck by a motor vehicle and sustained minor physical injuries.

Three weeks later, he attempted suicide by setting himself on fire, resulting in severe burns.

He applied for statutory accident benefits, claiming the suicide attempt was psychologically triggered by the motor vehicle accident.

The insurer denied the claims, arguing the suicide attempt was an intervening act caused by pre-existing psychological and social issues.

The arbitrator applied the direct causation test and the thin skull rule, finding that the motor vehicle accident was a direct cause of the suicide attempt.

The arbitrator ordered the insurer to pay for the proposed psychological treatment plan, the costs of related medical examinations, and interest on overdue payments.

The applicant was seriously injured in a motor vehicle accident in India in 1994 that killed three family members.

He applied for statutory accident benefits in 1998, approximately three and a half years after the 30-day time limit.

The insurer refused to pay benefits due to the delay.

The arbitrator found that the applicant had a reasonable excuse for the delay under subsection 59(4) of the Schedule, as his father had reasonably relied on incorrect advice from an insurance agent that coverage did not extend to overseas accidents, and acted expeditiously once he received correct legal advice.

The respondent's daughter and son were killed in a motor vehicle accident in India.

The respondent did not notify her insurer, Liberty Mutual, of the accident for three and a half years.

She claimed death benefits and funeral expenses.

The arbitrator found that the respondent had a reasonable excuse for the delay due to her profound grief, disabilities, and language barriers.

The arbitrator also found that the respondent was principally dependent for care on her daughter, and that her son was financially dependent on her.

Liberty Mutual appealed.

The Director's Delegate dismissed the appeal, finding that the arbitrator's factual findings were supported by the evidence.