David A. Morin

The appellant appealed an arbitrator's decision finding that he did not suffer a catastrophic impairment as a result of a motor vehicle accident.

The appellant argued that the arbitrator erred in law by failing to order a new Catastrophic Impairment Designated Assessment Centre (CAT DAC) assessment after recognizing serious procedural flaws in the original DAC process, including the omission of his treating neurosurgeon's report and the failure to conduct a clinical assessment.

The Director's Delegate dismissed the appeal, holding that while there were substantial departures from the DAC Guidelines, the arbitrator had the authority and discretion to weigh the DAC report alongside all other evidence and was not required to order a new assessment.

Following a preliminary issue hearing where the insurer was successful in establishing that the applicant was not catastrophically impaired, the arbitrator determined the issue of arbitration expenses.

The arbitrator awarded the applicant 20% of his expenses, noting that while the insurer was successful on the principal issue, the applicant succeeded on secondary issues and the insurer failed to meaningfully participate in settlement discussions.

The applicant was awarded $3,047.89 in expenses.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits, claiming he was catastrophically impaired due to severe cervical spondolytic myelopathy causing quadriparesis.

The insurer denied the claim.

The arbitrator found that while the applicant suffered from a catastrophic impairment, it was not caused or materially contributed to by the motor vehicle accident.

The evidence demonstrated that the applicant's neurological decline was a result of the natural progression of his pre-existing degenerative condition, as his symptoms did not abruptly worsen immediately following the accident.

The appellant estate appealed a trial judgment finding it liable for an undisclosed latent defect in a residential property.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's findings that the deceased's son acted as her agent, that the deceased made false statements in the disclosure statement, and that the vendor knew of widespread wood rot in the crawl space which constituted a latent defect unknown to the purchasers.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The appellants appealed an order of the Superior Court of Justice.

The Court of Appeal quashed the appeal, finding that the orders under appeal were interlocutory as they did not finally dispose of the rights of the parties.

Costs of $1,500 were awarded to the respondents, without prejudice to the appellants' right to seek leave to appeal to the Divisional Court.

Both parties appealed an arbitration order regarding statutory accident benefits following a snowmobile accident.

The claimant, who lived on an island and ran a contracting business, sought housing expenses, rehabilitation benefits for a new boat and snowmobile, and a recalculation of his Income Replacement Benefits (IRBs) to include business losses above the $400 weekly maximum.

The Director of Arbitrations upheld the denial of housing expenses, finding they were covered by a prior settlement release.

The Director also upheld the award for the boat and snowmobile, finding sufficient evidence that they were necessary to maintain the claimant's pre-accident lifestyle.

However, the Director allowed the claimant's appeal regarding IRBs, ruling that under the plain meaning of sections 6 and 7 of the SABS-1996, the $400 maximum is applied before adding 80 per cent of post-accident business losses, meaning the claimant's IRBs could exceed $400 per week.

The appellant sought leave to amend his Notice of Appeal to challenge a portion of the arbitration order regarding the calculation of income replacement benefits, which he had not initially appealed.

The respondent opposed the request, citing prejudice.

The Director's Delegate allowed the amendment, finding that the delay was short, the amendment raised a legitimate question of law, and the prejudice to the respondent could be addressed by concessions, undertakings, and an award of expenses thrown away.

The applicant was injured in a snowmobile accident and sought statutory accident benefits from his insurer.

He claimed housing expenses for winter accommodation on the mainland, a new boat and snowmobile as rehabilitation benefits, and income replacement benefits exceeding the $400 weekly maximum based on business losses.

The arbitrator dismissed the claim for housing expenses, finding it was covered by a prior settlement regarding relocation.

The arbitrator granted the claim for a new boat and snowmobile, accepting medical evidence that they were necessary to reduce impact on the applicant's back and allow him to maintain his business.

The arbitrator dismissed the claim for enhanced income replacement benefits, ruling that the statutory scheme caps benefits at $400 and compensates for actual income loss, not lost economic opportunity or potential profits.

The appellants appealed a trial judge's finding that the relationship between the parties was a debtor-creditor relationship rather than a partnership.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding it was open to the trial judge to make that determination.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and received statutory accident benefits for three years.

The insurer terminated weekly income benefits, child care supplement, and housekeeping expenses at the 156-week mark.

The applicant sought arbitration, claiming she was continuously prevented from engaging in substantially all of her normal activities due to chronic pain and cognitive difficulties.

The arbitrator reviewed extensive video surveillance evidence showing the applicant engaging in various physical activities, including driving, shopping, bending, lifting, and dancing.

The arbitrator concluded that while the applicant experienced pain, she was not continuously prevented from performing her normal housekeeping, child care, and recreational activities.

The claims for weekly benefits, child care supplement, and housekeeping expenses were dismissed, but $164 for babysitting expenses during pain flare-ups was awarded.