D. Kevin Carroll

The insurer appealed an arbitration decision awarding spousal death benefits to the natural father of the deceased's child.

The couple had separated and were living apart at the time of the fatal motor vehicle accident.

The Director's Delegate found that the arbitrator erred in law by applying a rebuttable presumption that common-law cohabitation continues despite separation when the couple has a child, until concrete steps are taken to terminate the relationship.

The appeal was allowed, the arbitration order revoked, and the matter remitted for a new hearing.

The plaintiff was seriously injured when her bicycle collided with a tow truck driven by an employee in the course of his employment.

The tow truck was owned by the employer.

The employer claimed 'protected defendant' status under s. 267.5 of the Insurance Act, which limits the liability of motor vehicle owners.

The Court of Appeal held that while the employer was protected in its capacity as the vehicle's owner, it was not protected from vicarious liability in its capacity as the driver's employer.

The appeal was dismissed.

The applicant sought a spousal death benefit of $50,000 following the death of his common-law partner in a motor vehicle accident.

The insurer denied the claim, arguing the couple had separated and were no longer cohabiting in a relationship of some permanence at the time of the accident.

The arbitrator found that despite living in separate residences for economic reasons, the couple maintained a relationship of some permanence, particularly given the recent birth of their child.

The arbitrator awarded the $50,000 death benefit, plus a $25,000 special award due to the insurer's unreasonable conduct in failing to advise the applicant of his potential entitlement and delaying the claim.