4 total
Application for statutory accident benefits dismissed due to insufficient evidence of entitlement.
The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits for caregiver, attendant care, and housekeeping expenses, as well as the cost of a psychological assessment.
The arbitrator dismissed all claims, finding that the applicant was not the primary caregiver for his children prior to the accident, did not require attendant care, and provided inconsistent evidence regarding housekeeping expenses.
The claim for the psychological assessment was dismissed due to a lack of evidence.
Application for judicial review of a Small Claims Court interlocutory order regarding paralegal representation dismissed.
The applicant sought judicial review of a Small Claims Court interlocutory order that permitted the respondent to be represented by a paralegal.
The Divisional Court dismissed the application, noting that it is reluctant to interfere with Small Claims Court interlocutory orders on judicial review unless there is a lack of jurisdiction or a breach of natural justice.
The court found no such breach and emphasized that the purpose of the Small Claims Court is to provide expeditious and low-cost resolution of disputes, which precludes appeals from interlocutory orders.
Appellant awarded appeal expenses despite mixed success because the appeal raised a novel issue of law.
Following an appeal regarding statutory accident benefits, the parties could not agree on the legal expenses of the appeal.
The Director's Delegate held that although the appellant had mixed success, she was entitled to her legal expenses because the appeal raised a novel issue of law regarding the interplay of sections 24 and 38.2 of the Schedule.
The Delegate fixed the quantum of expenses at $2,550.99, finding that a student-at-law provides legal services under the direct supervision of a lawyer and is therefore eligible for a higher hourly rate under Rule 78.1 of the Dispute Resolution Practice Code.
Insurer deemed to accept in-home assessment after failing to refer it to a DAC.
The appellant appealed an arbitrator's decision denying her claims for payment of three medical assessments and ordering her to pay a cancellation fee for failing to attend a Designated Assessment Centre (DAC) appointment.
The Director's Delegate found that the insurer failed to comply with the mandatory requirement to refer the in-home assessment to a DAC, and therefore was deemed to have accepted it as reasonably required.
The appeal was allowed in part, ordering the insurer to pay $869.50 for the in-home assessment.
The arbitrator's decision regarding the other assessments and the cancellation fee was upheld.
