Darrell March

Following an appeal and cross-appeal regarding statutory accident benefits where both parties enjoyed mixed success, both parties sought their legal expenses of the appeal.

The Director's Delegate found that neither party enjoyed a significantly greater degree of success that would warrant an award of expenses.

The parties were ordered to bear their own expenses of the appeal and cross-appeal.

The applicant's spouse was involved in a minor rear-end motor vehicle accident.

The following day, he committed suicide by overdosing on sleeping pills.

The applicant sought death benefits under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule, arguing the suicide was a direct result of the accident.

The arbitrator found no causal nexus between the use or operation of the vehicle and the suicide, concluding the death was not directly caused by the accident.

The claim for death benefits was dismissed.

The applicant was involved in two motor vehicle accidents and filed two separate Applications for Arbitration for non-earner benefits.

The insurer brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the second application as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process, arguing it duplicated the first.

The applicant requested that the two applications be combined.

The arbitrator found no evidence that the second application was an abuse of process, noting that the issue of benefits arising from the first accident had not yet been litigated.

The arbitrator ordered the two applications combined pursuant to Rule 30 of the Dispute Resolution Practice Code to ensure the most just, quickest, and least expensive resolution.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

At the hearing, the applicant requested to withdraw the claims, but the insurer did not consent.

The applicant did not call any evidence to support his claims.

As the applicant failed to discharge his burden of proof, the arbitrator dismissed the claims in their entirety.

The insurer was awarded $3,500.00 in expenses.

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

The insurer denied the claim for non-earner benefits in November 2011.

More than four years later, the applicant disputed the denial.

The insurer brought a preliminary issue motion to dismiss the claim as statute-barred.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal granted the motion, finding that the two-year limitation period under section 56(1) of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule began when the insurer issued a clear and unequivocal refusal in 2011.

The insurer's request for costs was denied as the applicant's conduct was not unreasonable, frivolous, vexatious, or in bad faith.

Both parties appealed an Arbitrator's decision regarding statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The Director's Delegate found that the Arbitrator breached procedural fairness by failing to provide adequate reasons for awarding attendant care, housekeeping, medical/rehabilitation benefits, and the cost of assessments.

The Delegate upheld the Arbitrator's finding that the accident caused the insured's shoulder injury and the award of income replacement benefits, but found no evidentiary basis for limiting the benefits to a three-month post-surgery period.

The Delegate also found the Arbitrator's dismissal of a special award to be self-contradictory given the finding that the insurer unreasonably withheld benefits.

The unsupported and unreasoned portions of the decision were rescinded and remitted for rehearing.

The Applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits, including an Income Replacement Benefit (IRB) beyond the 104-week mark and a Medical Treatment Plan.

The Insurer denied the benefits.

The Arbitrator found that the Applicant did not meet the "complete inability" test required for post-104 week IRBs, noting her history of working in a sedentary position and the availability of suitable alternative employment that would provide a higher income than her pre-accident earnings.

The Arbitrator also dismissed the claim for the Medical Treatment Plan, finding that the Applicant failed to prove it was reasonable and necessary, and did not contradict the Insurer's medical evidence that she had reached maximum therapeutic benefit.

The application was dismissed.

The respondent insurer requested a reconsideration of two cost orders issued by the Tribunal, arguing that the parties had settled their respective disputes before the decisions were issued.

The Tribunal found that the applicants' counsel failed to notify the Tribunal of the settlement and instead simply filed Notices of Withdrawal.

Concluding that it would be unfair for the applicants to benefit from the cost orders given the prior settlement, the Executive Chair granted the reconsideration and cancelled the cost orders.

The applicant sought costs against the respondent insurer for failing to comply with two Tribunal orders for the production of documents.

The Tribunal found that the respondent acted unreasonably by ignoring the orders and the applicant's follow-up communications, which necessitated a second production order and delayed the proceedings.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to pay $250.00 in costs to the applicant to discourage such conduct.

The applicant sought costs against the respondent insurer for failing to comply with two Tribunal orders for the production of documents.

The respondent did not produce the required documents until after a second order was issued and the applicant had requested costs.

The Tribunal found the respondent's conduct to be unreasonable, as it disregarded the Tribunal's orders and delayed the proceedings.

The Tribunal awarded costs of $250.00 to the applicant to discourage such conduct in the future.

The applicant sought death benefits following the death of her spouse in a motor vehicle accident.

At the hearing, the insurer objected to the applicant testifying because her counsel failed to provide a witness list in advance, contrary to a pre-hearing agreement and Rule 41 of the Dispute Resolution Practice Code.

The arbitrator ruled that the applicant could testify, noting that the insurer was prepared for cross-examination, claimed no prejudice, and procedural fairness required allowing the applicant to present her case fully.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a rear-end motor vehicle collision.

The insurer denied the claims on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The arbitrator found the applicant's testimony lacked credibility, noting inconsistencies between her evidence at the hearing and her self-reporting to medical experts.

The arbitrator rejected the applicant's expert reports because they relied on her inconsistent narrative and lacked clinical testing details.

The application for arbitration was dismissed, and the insurer was awarded its expenses.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and applied for statutory accident benefits, which the insurer denied.

The central issue was whether the applicant's injuries met the threshold for catastrophic impairment.

The arbitrator preferred the evidence of the applicant's experts, finding that the applicant suffered a marked psychological impairment and significant physical impairments, rendering her catastrophically impaired.

The arbitrator awarded various medical benefits, attendant care benefits, housekeeping and home maintenance benefits, and the costs of several assessments.

Claims for a driver desensitization assessment, a worksite assessment, and a special award were dismissed.

Interest was awarded on overdue payments.

The insurer sought its expenses after successfully defending the applicant's claim in its entirety.

The applicant argued that no expenses should be payable or that they should be reduced because the insurer unreasonably attempted to revive a preliminary issue regarding time limits after having settled it.

The arbitrator agreed that the insurer's conduct unnecessarily prolonged the hearing.

As roughly one-third of the hearing time was devoted to the preliminary matters decided against the insurer, the arbitrator awarded the insurer two-thirds of its claimed legal expenses, plus full disbursements and HST, totaling $16,144.23.

The applicant sought accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

At the arbitration hearing, the applicant did not attend in person.

The arbitrator denied the insurer's motions to dismiss the application based on the applicant's absence and failure to comply with production orders.

However, the arbitrator granted the insurer's motion to exclude the applicant's arbitration brief and witness list because they were served late without extraordinary circumstances.

The arbitrator denied the applicant's subsequent request for an adjournment.

As the applicant presented no evidence to prove her claim, the application for arbitration was dismissed.

The insurer was awarded expenses of $8,033.71.

The applicant was involved in three motor vehicle accidents in 2010 and 2011 and sought statutory accident benefits from the insurer, including income replacement benefits and medical benefits for various chiropractic and physiotherapy treatment plans.

The insurer denied the claims, arguing that the applicant did not suffer a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of his employment and that his injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline.

The arbitrator dismissed the applicant's claims, finding that he provided virtually no evidence regarding his pre-accident employment or the extent of his injuries.

The arbitrator relied on the insurer's medical assessments, which concluded that the applicant's injuries were minor and did not warrant treatment outside the Minor Injury Guideline.

The insurer was awarded $4,000 in arbitration expenses.

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

The arbitrator found that the insurer was entirely successful and entitled to its expenses.

Applying a 2:1 ratio for preparation to hearing time for a three-day hearing, the arbitrator fixed the insurer's expenses at $10,847.70, inclusive of fees, disbursements, and taxes, and ordered the applicant to pay this amount.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of his third party claim for delay.

The third party, a dissolved corporation, had successfully moved to dismiss the claim arising from a 1990 oil spill.

The Court of Appeal held that under section 242(1) of the Business Corporations Act, a dissolved corporation has the capacity to defend an action and bring a motion to dismiss without first being revived.

The Court also upheld the motion judge's finding that the appellant's delay was inordinate, inexcusable, and caused presumed and actual prejudice to the respondent.

The appeal was dismissed.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought medical benefits and the cost of an MRI examination from her insurer.

The insurer denied the benefits on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

At the arbitration hearing, the arbitrator excluded the applicant's arbitration brief due to late service but allowed her to testify.

The arbitrator found that the applicant failed to provide compelling evidence of a pre-existing condition that would exempt her from the MIG.

Relying on the insurer's medical reports, the arbitrator concluded the injuries were minor.

The claims for medical benefits and the MRI cost were dismissed.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought ongoing income replacement benefits (IRBs) after the insurer terminated them.

The arbitrator found the applicant lacked credibility, noting inconsistencies between her testimony, her reported pain, and the extensive medical imaging which showed no abnormalities.

Multiple independent medical examinations concluded there was no physical or psychological barrier preventing her return to work.

The arbitrator held that the applicant failed to prove she suffered a substantial inability to perform her pre-accident employment as a personal support worker, nor did she meet the post-104 week test of a complete inability to engage in suitable employment.

The claims for IRBs and interest were dismissed, and the insurer was awarded its expenses.