Carla S. Falkeisen

Following an appeal regarding statutory accident benefits, both parties sought their legal expenses for the appeal proceedings.

State Farm argued it was successful on all issues and had made a favourable offer to settle.

The Director's Delegate found that both parties had sought and obtained an order overturning the Arbitrator's original expense order, and both had sought additional relief.

Because both parties sought to overturn an identical aspect of the arbitration decision and both sought a broadened interpretation of jurisdiction, the Delegate ordered that each party bear their own legal expenses for the appeal.

The appellant appealed an arbitrator's decision restricting his income replacement benefits and denying housekeeping benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent cross-appealed the arbitrator's decision that each party bear their own arbitration expenses.

The Director's Delegate dismissed the appellant's appeal regarding benefits, finding the arbitrator made no error of law in assessing credibility and weighing medical evidence.

However, the Delegate allowed the cross-appeal regarding expenses, holding that procedural fairness requires an arbitrator to provide written reasons for an expense award.

The expense issue was remitted to the arbitrator.

The appellant appealed a decision finding that the execution of a forbearance agreement did not release him from his guarantee.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the terms of the guarantee explicitly allowed the bank to grant time and other indulgences to the borrower without discharging the guarantor's liability.