Eric K. Grossman

State Farm appealed an arbitrator's order allowing the insured to proceed to arbitration without a report of mediator.

The Director's Delegate affirmed the decision, finding that the 60-day prescribed time for mediation begins when a completed application is filed with FSCO, not when a mediator is appointed.

Because the 60 days had expired, mediation was deemed to have failed.

Although parties can agree to extend the time for mediation after the 60 days expire, no binding extension occurred here.

The arbitrator properly exercised discretion to waive the requirement to file a report of mediator, as the failure to issue one was FSCO's responsibility.

The defendant insurer brought a motion for the determination of a question of law prior to trial regarding whether the plaintiff was entitled to simple or compound interest on arrears of weekly income benefits under s. 24(4) of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule (OMPP legislation).

Applying the modern principle of statutory interpretation and reviewing legislative history, including the Kruger Report, the court found that the legislature intended to impose a penalty on insurers for late payments.

The court concluded that interest payable under s. 24(4) is compound interest.

The appellants, Intact Insurance Company and Belair Insurance Company Inc., appealed preliminary orders of an arbitrator refusing to stay 15 separate arbitration proceedings for statutory accident benefits.

The appellants sought a stay on the basis of a concurrent court action alleging fraud against the medical assessment centres involved in the claims, and alternatively, for two respondents, based on their failure to attend examinations under oath.

The Director's Delegate combined the appeals and accepted the appeal regarding the concurrent court action, finding it raised a novel and important question of law regarding the application of the RJR-MacDonald test for a stay in the tribunal context.

However, the Delegate rejected the appeal regarding the examinations under oath, finding the arbitrator did not err in law and the issue of the specific remedy under section 33 of the Schedule had not yet been addressed.

The Delegate denied the appellants' request for a stay of the arbitrator's orders pending the appeal.

The appellant appealed an arbitration decision denying his claims for income replacement benefits and a determination of catastrophic impairment following a motor vehicle accident.

The Director's Delegate upheld the arbitrator's findings that the appellant did not suffer a catastrophic impairment because he lacked a diagnosable mental or behavioural disorder under s. 2(1.1)(g) of the SABS.

The Delegate also affirmed that the appellant's psychological issues were caused by pre-existing and post-accident stressors unrelated to the collision.

Furthermore, the arbitrator's refusal to admit a late-disclosed tax worksheet to prove income loss was upheld as a proper exercise of discretion.

The appeal was dismissed.

The Insurer brought a motion to stay the arbitration proceedings in this and fourteen other cases, arguing that it had commenced a civil action against several rehabilitation facilities for alleged fraud and unjust enrichment.

The Insurer sought a stay pending the outcome of the court action to avoid a multiplicity of proceedings and inconsistent findings.

The Arbitrator applied the RJR-MacDonald test and found that the Insurer failed to establish irreparable harm or that proceeding would constitute an abuse of process.

The motion for a stay was dismissed.

The Insurer brought a motion to stay the applicant's arbitration for statutory accident benefits, along with 14 other similar cases, pending the resolution of a civil action it commenced against several assessment facilities for alleged fraud and unjust enrichment.

The Insurer argued that proceeding with the arbitrations would result in a multiplicity of proceedings and potential inconsistent findings.

The Arbitrator applied the RJR-MacDonald test for a stay of proceedings and found that the Insurer failed to establish that it would suffer irreparable harm or that allowing the cases to proceed would constitute an abuse of process.

The motion for a stay was dismissed.

The Insurer brought a motion to stay the Applicant's arbitration proceeding, along with 14 other similar cases, pending the resolution of a Superior Court action it commenced against several assessment facilities for alleged fraud and unjust enrichment.

The Insurer argued that proceeding at FSCO would result in a multiplicity of proceedings and potential inconsistent findings.

The Arbitrator applied the RJR-MacDonald test and dismissed the motion, finding that the Insurer failed to establish that it would suffer irreparable harm or that proceeding would constitute an abuse of process.

The Arbitrator noted that the court action could take years and the Applicant would be prejudiced by the delay.

The Insurer brought a motion to stay the applicant's arbitration proceeding, along with 14 other similar cases, pending the resolution of a civil action it commenced against several treatment facilities for alleged fraud and unjust enrichment.

The Insurer argued that proceeding with the arbitrations would result in a multiplicity of proceedings and inconsistent findings.

The Arbitrator applied the RJR-MacDonald test and dismissed the motion, finding that the Insurer failed to establish that it would suffer irreparable harm or that allowing the cases to proceed would constitute an abuse of process.

The Arbitrator noted that the civil action could take years to resolve and that the applicant would be prejudiced by the delay.

The Insurer brought a motion to stay the Applicant's claim for statutory accident benefits at FSCO, along with 14 other similar cases.

The Insurer argued that a stay was necessary because it had commenced a civil action against several rehabilitation facilities for alleged fraud and unjust enrichment, and the Applicant's claims relied on services from those facilities.

The Arbitrator dismissed the motion, finding that the Insurer failed to meet the RJR-MacDonald test for a stay.

Specifically, the Insurer did not establish that it would suffer irreparable harm or that allowing the FSCO proceedings to continue would constitute an abuse of process.

The Insurer brought a motion for a stay of proceedings in this and fourteen other cases, arguing that it had commenced a court action against several rehabilitation facilities for alleged fraud and unjust enrichment.

The Insurer sought to stay the FSCO proceedings until the conclusion of its court action to avoid a multiplicity of proceedings and inconsistent findings.

The Arbitrator applied the RJR-MacDonald test and found that the Insurer failed to establish irreparable harm or that proceeding would constitute an abuse of process.

The motion for a stay was dismissed.

The Insurer brought a motion to stay the arbitration proceeding, along with 14 other related cases, pending the resolution of a civil action it commenced against several rehabilitation facilities for alleged fraud and unjust enrichment.

The Insurer argued that a stay was necessary to prevent a multiplicity of proceedings and an abuse of process.

The Arbitrator applied the RJR-MacDonald test and dismissed the motion, finding that the Insurer failed to establish that it would suffer irreparable harm or that allowing the arbitration to proceed would constitute an abuse of process.

The Arbitrator noted that the civil action involved different parties and issues, and that the Insurer could still challenge the credibility of the facilities' evidence in the arbitration.

The Insurer brought a motion to stay the applicant's arbitration for statutory accident benefits, along with 14 other similar cases, pending the resolution of a civil action it commenced against several treatment facilities for alleged fraud and unjust enrichment.

The Insurer argued that proceeding with the arbitrations would result in a multiplicity of proceedings and potential inconsistent findings.

The Arbitrator applied the RJR-MacDonald test and dismissed the motion, finding that the Insurer failed to establish that it would suffer irreparable harm or that allowing the cases to proceed would constitute an abuse of process.

The Arbitrator noted that the civil action could take years to resolve and that the insured persons were not named as defendants in that action.

The insurer brought a motion to stay the FSCO arbitration proceedings of the applicant and fourteen others, arguing that it had commenced a civil action against several rehabilitation facilities for alleged fraud and unjust enrichment.

The insurer sought the stay to avoid a multiplicity of proceedings and inconsistent findings.

The arbitrator applied the RJR-MacDonald test and found that the insurer failed to establish irreparable harm or that proceeding would constitute an abuse of process.

The motion for a stay was dismissed.

The Insurer brought a motion to stay the Applicant's arbitration proceeding, along with 14 other similar cases, pending the resolution of a civil action it commenced against several rehabilitation facilities for alleged fraud and unjust enrichment.

The Insurer argued that proceeding with the arbitrations would result in a multiplicity of proceedings and potential inconsistent findings.

The Arbitrator applied the RJR-MacDonald test and dismissed the motion, finding that the Insurer failed to establish that it would suffer irreparable harm or that proceeding with the arbitrations would constitute an abuse of process.

The Arbitrator noted that the civil action could take years to resolve and that the Applicant would be prejudiced by the delay.

The insurer brought a motion to stay the applicant's claim for statutory accident benefits, along with 14 other similar claims, pending the resolution of a civil action it commenced against several rehabilitation facilities for alleged fraud and unjust enrichment.

The insurer argued that proceeding at FSCO would result in a multiplicity of proceedings and inconsistent findings.

The arbitrator applied the RJR-MacDonald test and dismissed the motion, finding that the insurer failed to establish that it would suffer irreparable harm or that allowing the case to proceed would constitute an abuse of process.

The arbitrator noted that the applicant was not a party to the civil action and would be prejudiced by a delay.

The insurer brought a motion to stay the applicant's arbitration proceeding for statutory accident benefits, along with 14 other similar cases.

The insurer argued that a stay was necessary because it had commenced a civil action against the treatment facilities involved in the claims, alleging fraud and unjust enrichment.

The arbitrator applied the RJR-MacDonald test for a stay of proceedings and found that the insurer failed to establish that it would suffer irreparable harm or that allowing the arbitration to proceed would constitute an abuse of process.

The motion for a stay was dismissed.

The Insurer brought a motion to stay 15 FSCO arbitration proceedings, including this one, pending the resolution of a Superior Court action it commenced against several assessment facilities for alleged fraud and unjust enrichment.

The Insurer argued that proceeding at FSCO would result in a multiplicity of proceedings and inconsistent findings.

The Arbitrator applied the RJR-MacDonald test and dismissed the motion, finding that the Insurer failed to establish that it would suffer irreparable harm or that proceeding at FSCO would constitute an abuse of process.

The Arbitrator noted that the insured persons were not named as defendants in the court action and that staying their accident benefits claims would cause presumed prejudice.

The Insurer brought a motion to stay the Applicant's arbitration proceeding for statutory accident benefits.

The Insurer argued a stay was warranted because it had commenced a civil action against the rehabilitation facilities for alleged fraud, and alternatively, because the Applicant refused to submit to an examination under oath.

The Arbitrator dismissed the motion, finding the Insurer failed to establish irreparable harm or that a stay was necessary to prevent an abuse of process under the RJR-MacDonald test.

The Arbitrator also held that while an insurer's right to an examination under oath is not extinguished by litigation, a stay is an extraordinary remedy that was not justified on the evidence.

The insurer brought a motion to stay the applicant's arbitration proceeding for statutory accident benefits.

The insurer argued a stay was warranted because it had commenced a civil action against the rehabilitation facilities used by the applicant for alleged fraud, and alternatively because the applicant refused to submit to an examination under oath.

The arbitrator dismissed the motion, finding the insurer failed to establish irreparable harm or an abuse of process under the RJR-MacDonald test.

The arbitrator also held that while an insurer's right to an examination under oath is not extinguished by litigation, a stay of proceedings is an extraordinary remedy that was not justified on the evidence.

The applicant's counsel brought a motion to withdraw as solicitor of record due to an irretrievable breakdown in the solicitor-client relationship.

The insurer did not object but requested that the withdrawal be subject to certain terms regarding notification of future representation, production of documents, and a revised timetable for a preliminary issue hearing.

The arbitrator granted the motion to withdraw and imposed the terms requested by the insurer.