Brian M. Yung

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits from the respondent following a motor vehicle accident.

The disputed claims included income replacement benefits, attendant care benefits, and the cost of examinations.

After the commencement of the hearing, the applicant withdrew the application.

The Tribunal closed the file.

The plaintiff brought a motion seeking a pre-trial interpretation of Section 267.5 of the Insurance Act, specifically the phrase "without regard to" in s. 267.5(7)(1), to require the trial judge to inform the jury about statutory deductibles applicable to general damages awards in motor vehicle accident actions.

The motion, brought under Rules 21 and 22 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The court found that the issue of jury knowledge of deductibles was not a matter of law in the pleadings that would dispose of the action, substantially shorten the trial, or result in significant cost savings, nor was there an agreed-upon special case under Rule 22.

The Appellant was injured in a motor vehicle accident while serving the two-week waiting period for Employment Insurance (EI) benefits, following a period of salary continuance from his former employer.

He applied for an income replacement benefit (IRB) under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The Arbitrator ruled that the Appellant was not entitled to an IRB because he was not 'receiving' EI benefits at the time of the accident, as required by section 5(1)(ii) of the Schedule.

On appeal, the Director's Delegate upheld the Arbitrator's decision, finding no error in the interpretation that 'receiving' requires actual payment, which had not occurred due to the statutory waiting period.

The Applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought income replacement benefits from the Insurer.

At the time of the accident, the Applicant was unemployed and had recently exhausted his severance pay.

He was in the two-week waiting period for Employment Insurance (EI) benefits.

The Insurer denied the claim on the basis that the Applicant was not receiving EI benefits at the time of the accident, as required by section 5(1) of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The Arbitrator agreed with the Insurer, finding that the Applicant was not in receipt of EI benefits during the waiting period.

The application for income replacement benefits was dismissed.

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

The insurer issued a denial of income replacement benefits (IRBs) before the applicant had actually claimed them.

More than two years later, the applicant applied for mediation of the IRB claim.

The insurer argued the claim was statute-barred by the two-year limitation period and that the applicant failed to provide timely notice of her intention to apply.

The Arbitrator held that a pre-emptive denial of an unclaimed benefit does not trigger the limitation period.

Furthermore, the applicant was not precluded from claiming IRBs for late notice, as the insurer had received sufficient information early on regarding her recent retirement to begin adjusting the claim but failed to do so.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiff’s motion to amend a statement of claim to substitute named defendants for John/Jane Doe defendants, the court addressed costs between the plaintiff and one proposed defendant.

The proposed defendant sought partial indemnity costs after successfully opposing the motion.

The plaintiff challenged several components of the claimed costs, including preparation of a factum, travel time, and the total hours claimed, and argued that the interests of the proposed defendants were identical such that separate costs should not be awarded.

The court rejected those submissions, finding the proposed defendants’ interests were not the same and that separate representation was appropriate.

The court fixed fair and reasonable costs payable by the plaintiff.