Daniel Strigberger

The Applicant sought production of surveillance videos and related reports from the Insurer in a statutory accident benefits dispute.

The Insurer had initially stated no surveillance existed but later admitted it did, refusing production on the basis of privilege and the Dispute Resolution Practice Code.

The Arbitrator ordered the Insurer to produce the surveillance evidence forthwith, finding that the Insurer failed to meet its evidentiary burden to support a claim of litigation or solicitor-client privilege.

The Arbitrator dismissed the Insurer's late request for the Applicant's photographs and videos, as well as the Applicant's broad request for all investigative reports.

The applicant sought to schedule an arbitration hearing as soon as possible, suggesting January 2009.

The insurer's counsel was unavailable for those dates and requested March 2009.

The arbitrator held that the scheduling of the hearing is not strictly dependent on the availability of the insurer's counsel, emphasizing the statutory goal of a prompt and inexpensive resolution.

The arbitrator ordered that the hearing remain scheduled for January 12, 2009, noting the applicant's willingness to consent to an adjournment if the insurer's counsel was actually engaged in conflicting judicial commitments at that time.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and submitted an Application for Accident Benefits to the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Fund without a police report.

The Fund argued it did not receive a completed application and that there was no nexus between it and the applicant.

The arbitrator found that while the application became complete when the Fund eventually received the police report, the applicant's choice to submit the application to the Fund was arbitrary.

Because the applicant failed to establish a sufficient nexus with the Fund, the Fund was not an 'insurer' within the meaning of section 268 of the Insurance Act and was not required to respond to the application.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and applied for statutory accident benefits from the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Fund (MVAC Fund).

The applicant later sought to add Wawanesa Mutual Insurance Company as an insurer to the arbitration.

The Arbitrator held that there is no jurisdiction to add Wawanesa as a party, as jurisdiction must be specifically granted or flow by necessary implication.

Section 281(2) of the Insurance Act prohibits arbitration without prior mediation, which had not occurred with Wawanesa, and O. Reg. 283/95 establishes a separate process for priority disputes.

The motion was denied.