Cary N. Schneider

The applicant insurer sought judicial review of a Director's Delegate decision which held that the respondent insured was entitled to interest at 2% per month on overdue statutory accident benefits.

The insured's accident occurred after the New Regulation (O. Reg. 34/10) came into effect, but her policy was issued before that date.

The Divisional Court found the Delegate's decision unreasonable, holding that the clear wording of the New Regulation applied to all accidents occurring on or after September 1, 2010, rebutting any presumption against interference with vested rights.

The application for judicial review was granted and the Delegate's decision was quashed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits for a digital motion x-ray exam, assessments, and transportation expenses following a motor vehicle accident.

The adjudicator found that the applicant failed to provide sufficient objective medical evidence to prove the digital x-ray and assessments were reasonable and necessary, relying instead on the respondent's insurer examinations which found no accident-related abnormalities.

The claim for transportation expenses was denied because the applicant failed to submit a required treatment plan.

The application was dismissed, and the respondent's request for costs was denied as there was no evidence of unreasonable or bad faith conduct by the applicant.

The applicant claimed statutory accident benefits and subsequently withdrew his application after failing to meet production timelines set in a case conference order.

The respondent brought a motion for costs, arguing the applicant's conduct was unreasonable, frivolous, vexatious, or in bad faith.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that the applicant made substantial efforts to comply with the orders and that the respondent could have consented to an adjournment request instead of opposing the withdrawal.

The Tribunal held that a withdrawal alone is rarely sufficient for a costs award.

The respondent insurer brought a motion to preclude the applicant from proceeding with her application for statutory accident benefits, arguing she failed to attend scheduled insurer's examinations.

The applicant argued the notice of examination failed to set out the medical reasons for the examination as required by section 44(5)(a) of the Schedule.

The Tribunal found that the notice did not provide medical reasons, rendering it invalid.

Consequently, the applicant was not non-compliant and was not precluded from proceeding with her application.

The respondent's request for costs was denied.

The appellant was injured in a motor vehicle accident on October 29, 2010, and claimed statutory accident benefits under a transitional policy.

The arbitrator held that interest on overdue benefits was payable at the reduced rate of 1% per month under the New Regulation.

On appeal, the Director's Delegate found that the arbitrator erred in law by failing to apply the specific transition provisions in the Old and New Regulations, which preserved the 2% per month interest rate for amounts determined under the Old Regulation.

The appeal was allowed, and the appellant was awarded interest at 2% per month, compounded monthly.

The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing the plaintiff's action was statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002, as it was commenced after the two-year limitation period.

The core issue was the discoverability date of the plaintiff's injuries, specifically when she knew or ought to have known her injuries constituted "permanent serious impairment" under the Insurance Act.

The court found that the plaintiff's chronic pain and psychological conditions were diagnosed by May 9, 2008, at which point she ought to have known she had a cause of action.

As the action was commenced on September 27, 2010, it was beyond the two-year limitation period.

The motion for summary judgment was granted, and the action dismissed.

The plaintiff was involved in a motor vehicle accident and commenced an action against one driver.

He later amended his claim to add a second driver as a defendant, and the first driver crossclaimed against the second driver.

The second driver successfully moved for summary judgment dismissing the plaintiff's claim as statute-barred, but the motion judge refused to dismiss the crossclaim.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal allowed the plaintiff's appeal, finding the motion judge erred by conflating a lack of due diligence with the actual date of discoverability under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The Court dismissed the second driver's cross-appeal regarding the crossclaim, upholding the motion judge's finding on when the claim for contribution and indemnity was reasonably discoverable.

The appellant appealed an arbitrator's decision dismissing her claim for attendant care benefits and a special award.

The arbitrator had found that the appellant did not clearly communicate her impecuniosity to the insurer, and therefore the insurer did not unreasonably withhold benefits under subsection 3(8) of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The Director's Delegate rescinded the decision, holding that subsection 3(8) does not require an insured to communicate their financial inability to pay as a pre-requisite to deeming an expense incurred.

The matter was remitted to a different arbitrator for a new hearing.

Following an arbitration where the applicant's claims for statutory accident benefits were dismissed, the insurer sought its expenses.

The arbitrator found that the insurer was completely successful and that the applicant's conduct, including failing to comply with disclosure requirements and giving inconsistent histories to medical providers, unnecessarily prolonged the hearing.

The arbitrator awarded the insurer its expenses but reduced the requested hourly rate for counsel from $150.00 to $117.85, as the higher rate is only available to insured persons under the Dispute Resolution Practice Code.

The insurer was awarded $8,555.86 in fees, inclusive of HST, with no award for disbursements.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought housekeeping and caregiving benefits from her insurer.

She moved to California shortly after the accident and gave inconsistent medical histories to various health care providers, attributing her injuries to a yoga incident or moving boxes rather than the car accident.

The arbitrator found the applicant lacked credibility and failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that she suffered any disability related to caregiving or housekeeping as a result of the motor vehicle accident.

The claims were dismissed.