Beverlee C. Melamed

Following an arbitration decision awarding statutory accident benefits to the applicant, the parties disputed the quantum of expenses, the calculation of interest on overdue benefits, and whether the arbitrator had jurisdiction to increase the quantum of an approved medical benefit.

The arbitrator awarded the applicant $27,910.01 in expenses, finding the insurer's adversarial approach unnecessarily prolonged the proceedings.

The arbitrator also held that interest on overdue benefits runs from 30 days after the receipt of the treatment plans, rejecting the insurer's argument that interest only runs from the submission of invoices.

Finally, the arbitrator concluded she lacked jurisdiction to amend the quantum of the approved medical benefit, as it would constitute a substantive change rather than correcting a typographical error.

The applicant, who sustained a catastrophic impairment including a traumatic brain injury in a motor vehicle accident, sought various medical and rehabilitation benefits under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The insurer denied several treatment plans for physiotherapy, occupational therapy, speech-language therapy, and a multi-disciplinary residential program in the United States.

The arbitrator found that the insurer improperly relied on outdated or flawed assessor reports and failed to give adequate weight to the objective evidence of the applicant's treating professionals.

All disputed treatment plans were found to be reasonable and necessary, and the applicant was awarded the claimed benefits with interest.

The plaintiff, a seven-year-old student, suffered a catastrophic brain bleed after being punched in the head by another student during recess.

The plaintiff sued the school board and its staff for negligent supervision.

The court found that while the punch caused the brain bleed due to the plaintiff's pre-existing undiagnosed arteriovenous malformation, the school board and staff were not negligent.

The general supervision of the schoolyard met the standard of a careful and prudent parent, and the offending student's prior minor misbehaviour did not warrant closer supervision.

The action was dismissed.