Candace Mak

The appellant appealed an arbitrator's decision dismissing his claim for income replacement benefits (IRBs) following a motor vehicle accident.

The arbitrator held a written hearing and found that because the appellant had not filed income tax returns, section 4(5) of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule precluded calculating IRBs based on unreported income.

On appeal, the appellant argued the arbitrator erred by holding a written hearing and that section 4(5) only applies to self-employed persons.

The Director's Delegate dismissed the appeal, confirming that section 4(5) applies to both employed and self-employed persons.

Since the appellant had no reported income, his IRB quantum was zero, and an oral hearing was unnecessary.

The applicant, a pedestrian struck by a vehicle, sought Income Replacement Benefits (IRBs) and funding for psychological and chronic pain assessments.

The insurer terminated IRBs after six months and denied the assessments, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guidelines (MIG).

The Tribunal found the applicant did not suffer a substantial inability to perform his essential tasks for the first 104 weeks, nor a complete inability to engage in employment thereafter, relying on surveillance evidence showing him working and medical reports indicating symptom magnification.

The Tribunal also concluded the applicant's injuries were minor, dismissing the claims for the assessments.

The applicant sought income replacement benefits (IRBs) following a motor vehicle accident.

The insurer stopped paying IRBs and requested the applicant's income tax returns to verify his pre-accident income, which the applicant failed to produce.

At a Preliminary Issue Hearing held in writing, the arbitrator found that under section 4(5) of the Schedule, unreported income cannot be used to calculate IRBs, resulting in a quantum of zero.

The arbitrator concluded that maintaining the claim to the eve of the hearing without the required tax documents bordered on an abuse of process and dismissed the claim for IRBs.

The defendant insurer brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's claims for medical and income replacement benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The defendant argued the plaintiff's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) $3,500 cap and that no evidence supported the income replacement claim.

The court granted the motion, finding the plaintiff failed to put his best foot forward by adducing medical evidence to rebut the defendant's section 44 assessments.

The court concluded there was no genuine issue requiring a trial and dismissed the action.

The appellant insurer appealed a Divisional Court judgment dismissing its application for judicial review of a decision by the Director's Delegate.

The Director's Delegate had found that the two-year limitation period for the respondent to apply for mediation regarding a denied non-earner benefit did not begin to run until the insurer provided the medical report it relied upon in its denial.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the Director's Delegate's interpretation of the home statute was reasonable and entitled to deference.

The plaintiff brought a motion to set aside a registrar's dismissal of her personal injury action for abandonment under Rule 48.

The action arose from a 2009 rear-end motor vehicle accident.

The plaintiff had difficulty serving the defendant driver, who had moved frequently and had her license suspended for failing to pay fines related to the accident.

The court found the plaintiff had an acceptable explanation for the delay and that the defendants would suffer no non-compensable prejudice if the action proceeded.

The motion was granted and the action was restored to active status.

The insurer moved for summary judgment dismissing the accident benefits claim on the basis that the claimant's impairments fell within the Minor Injury Guidelines under the statutory accident benefits regime.

The court held that the responding party failed to put forward admissible evidence showing chronic pain, psychological impairment, or any injury taking the claim outside predominantly minor sprains and strains.

Applying the summary judgment framework, the court found there was no genuine issue requiring a trial and that the record was sufficient for final disposition.

Summary judgment was granted dismissing the action against the insurer, with costs fixed at $3,500 inclusive of disbursements and HST.