David Gillespie

The applicant, a military reservist, was struck by a motor vehicle and received weekly income benefits for 198 weeks.

The insurer terminated benefits, arguing the applicant could return to light sedentary work.

The arbitrator found that while the applicant was physically capable of light sedentary work, he was not 'reasonably suited' for such employment by his education, training, or experience, given his long career in a demanding military role.

The arbitrator also determined the correct quantum of the weekly benefit based on bank records, as official payroll records were unreliable.

The insurer's claim for repayment of prior overpaid benefits was dismissed because the applicant did not contribute to the error.

The applicant was injured when she slipped and fell on a transit bus.

She received statutory accident benefits, but the insurer terminated her weekly income benefits after she returned to work.

The applicant later stopped working due to another workplace incident and sought reinstatement of her weekly income benefits, as well as medication and travel expenses.

The arbitrator found insufficient medical evidence connecting her ongoing inability to work to the bus accident, relying on medical reports indicating her injuries should not prevent her from performing her normal activities.

The claims for weekly income benefits and medical expenses were dismissed, though the applicant was awarded her hearing expenses.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and received weekly income benefits from the insurer.

The insurer sought to exclude the applicant from receiving benefits under clauses 17(1)(c) and (d) of the No-Fault Benefits Schedule, arguing he was driving without insurance.

The arbitrator found that clause 17(1)(c) requires a conviction for driving without insurance, which the applicant did not have, as his charge was withdrawn and he pleaded guilty only to failing to have an insurance card.

The arbitrator also held that clause 17(1)(d) relates to licensing matters, not compulsory insurance legislation.

The applicant was found not to be excluded from receiving benefits and was awarded his expenses for the preliminary issue hearing.