Christine MacGregor

The plaintiffs, a mother and son, were injured in a low-speed motor vehicle accident.

The son claimed the accident caused chronic pain syndrome and depression, disabling him from his employment as a security technician.

The mother claimed the accident caused a left shoulder impairment that prevented her from performing housekeeping and self-care.

The court found both plaintiffs met the statutory threshold under the Insurance Act, having sustained permanent serious impairments of important functions.

The court awarded damages for pain and suffering, past and future income loss, future care, and housekeeping/attendant care.

The appellant appealed an Arbitrator's decision denying him further income replacement benefits (IRBs) on the basis that his post-accident income from self-employment reduced his entitlement.

The appellant argued the Arbitrator erred in finding he was self-employed and in attributing 50% of the business's post-accident profit to him.

The Director's Delegate dismissed the appeal, finding no error of law.

The Arbitrator's findings of fact were supported by ample evidence, including the appellant's tax returns, and the Arbitrator correctly applied the accounting principle of consistency to calculate the post-accident income.

The Applicant sought additional post-104 Income Replacement Benefits (IRBs) following a motor vehicle accident.

The Insurer had deducted amounts from the IRBs based on the Applicant's self-employment income reported on his tax returns.

The Applicant argued that he was not employed as defined by the Schedule and that his tax returns were incorrect.

The Arbitrator found that the Applicant was self-employed during the period in dispute, as he continued to manage his rental properties and reported self-employment income on his tax returns.

The Arbitrator concluded that the Insurer correctly calculated the IRBs and dismissed the Applicant's claim for additional benefits and interest.