Daniel Edwards

The court determined pre-judgment interest and costs following a jury verdict in a personal injury action.

Pre-judgment interest on general damages was reduced from 14 to 10 years due to plaintiff-occasioned delays.

The applicable rate for past loss of income was confirmed at 2.8%.

Plaintiffs were awarded partial indemnity costs to December 8, 2015, and substantial indemnity costs thereafter, totaling $727,290.00.

The defendant Upright, having made a better offer than the jury verdict, was awarded partial indemnity costs of $210,000.00 from the defendant Janandee.

The plaintiffs' costs were apportioned between the defendants based on their respective liability findings (Janandee 94%, Upright 6%).

Following a finding that the insurer unreasonably withheld income replacement benefits, the arbitrator determined the quantum of the special award.

The arbitrator calculated the maximum permissible special award under section 282(10) of the Insurance Act to be $754,139.36, rejecting the insurer's argument that interest should only run from the date the withholding became unreasonable.

Applying the Persofsky framework, the arbitrator weighed the insurer's conduct, the length of delay, and awards in similar cases, ultimately ordering a lump sum special award of $40,000.

Liberty Mutual appealed an arbitration order requiring it to pay a loss of earning capacity benefit based on a pre-accident earning capacity of $31,000 and a residual earning capacity of zero.

The Director's Delegate upheld the finding of zero residual earning capacity, noting it was supported by evidence that the claimant could not work reliably or consistently.

However, the Delegate allowed the appeal regarding pre-accident earning capacity, finding the Arbitrator erred in law by failing to consider the credibility of the claimant's undocumented assertion that she was about to open a third gas station.

The issue of pre-accident earning capacity was remitted to the Arbitrator.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and applied for statutory accident benefits, including income replacement and housekeeping benefits.

The insurer denied the income replacement benefits, arguing she was unemployed at the time of the accident.

The arbitrator found that the applicant's casual part-time work as a bartender constituted employment at the time of the accident, entitling her to income replacement benefits for a closed period of 10 weeks.

Claims for further housekeeping expenses and a special award were dismissed.

The appellant appealed an Arbitrator's decision that limited his income replacement benefits and attendant care benefits, awarded a nominal special award, and reduced his arbitration expenses due to his deceit and exaggeration of symptoms.

The respondent cross-appealed, arguing the Arbitrator failed to deduct income tax when calculating the appellant's pre-accident income.

The Director's Delegate dismissed the appellant's appeal, finding the Arbitrator's conclusions on disability, credibility, expenses, and the special award were well-supported by the evidence, including surveillance footage that contradicted the appellant's claims.

The Delegate allowed the respondent's variation application, correcting the benefit rate to account for income tax deductions.

The Delegate also upheld the Arbitrator's ruling that he lacked jurisdiction to order interest accruing after the date of his decision, but ordered the respondent to pay the appellant's post-decision implementation expenses due to its unjustified delay in complying with the original order.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and applied for statutory accident benefits, specifically income replacement benefits.

The applicant and her husband were self-employed, operating a retail electronics store.

The applicant claimed she was entitled to an income replacement benefit based on the cost of hiring replacement labour.

The arbitrator found that the applicant suffered a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of her employment due to the accident.

However, because the business operated at a loss prior to the accident and there was no evidence that the business incurred additional losses as a result of the accident, the amount of the income replacement benefit was calculated to be zero.

The application for arbitration was dismissed, and the claim for a special award was denied.

The applicant, a registered nurse, was struck by a vehicle and sustained a knee fracture.

She applied for statutory accident benefits, and the insurer paid income replacement benefits until terminating them based on a residual earning capacity assessment that concluded she could work full-time as a clinic nurse.

The arbitrator found that while the applicant was physically capable of light nursing duties, such positions were not accessible to her in her area due to a poor job market, resulting in a residual earning capacity of nil.

The arbitrator also determined that the applicant's pre-accident earning capacity should be calculated by converting her part-time nursing income to full-time income under section 86 of the Schedule, as there was a real possibility she would have secured full-time employment but for the accident.

The applicant was awarded ongoing loss of earning capacity benefits, but her claim for a special award was dismissed as the insurer's conduct did not amount to an unreasonable delay or withholding of benefits.

The appellant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and claimed income replacement benefits.

The insurer terminated benefits based on medical assessments indicating the appellant could return to work.

The arbitrator dismissed the appellant's claim for ongoing benefits, finding he was not substantially unable to perform the essential tasks of his self-employment in construction, and calculated a reduced benefit rate based on estimated business expenses.

On appeal, the Director's Delegate upheld the arbitrator's decision, finding no error in the assessment of the expert medical evidence or the pragmatic calculation of the appellant's self-employment income.

The appellant appealed an arbitration order denying his claim for weekly income benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The appellant, a self-employed businessman, claimed he was unable to work as a transmission mechanic due to right wrist and shoulder injuries.

The Director's Delegate upheld the arbitrator's decision, finding that the appellant failed to provide credible, independent financial records to establish his pre-accident self-employment income or business losses.

Furthermore, the appellant's credibility was undermined by his failure to disclose a prior wrist fracture and surveillance evidence showing him working after the accident.

The appeal was denied.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits, including income replacement benefits, supplementary medical benefits, and attendant care benefits.

The insurer terminated income replacement benefits, alleging the applicant failed to attend a medical examination and was malingering.

The arbitrator found that the insurer improperly terminated benefits before obtaining a Designated Assessment Centre report, entitling the applicant to benefits until the report's release.

However, the arbitrator concluded the applicant grossly exaggerated his physical and cognitive symptoms, relying on surveillance evidence and medical inconsistencies, and denied ongoing income replacement benefits.

The arbitrator also awarded limited supplementary medical and attendant care benefits, and a special award due to the insurer's unreasonable delay in initial payments and refusal to fund certain treatments.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and received statutory accident benefits.

The insurer terminated weekly income benefits, and the applicant sought ongoing income benefits, supplementary medical and rehabilitation benefits, care benefits, and a special award.

The insurer claimed a repayment of overpaid benefits due to an alleged calculation error and the applicant's receipt of CPP disability benefits.

The arbitrator found that the applicant failed to establish that her ongoing back problems were caused by the accident, given her pre-existing degenerative disc disease and prior injuries.

Consequently, claims for ongoing income, medical, and care benefits were dismissed.

The arbitrator determined the correct weekly income benefit rate and ordered the applicant to repay $16,540.54 for overlapping CPP benefits, but denied the insurer's claim for repayment based on 'error,' finding the insurer had deliberately chosen its calculation method.

The applicant's claims for a special award and arbitration expenses were dismissed.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and received weekly income benefits from the insurer until they were terminated on the basis that he no longer suffered a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of his employment.

The applicant, who was self-employed as a grocery store owner, sought ongoing weekly income benefits and the cost of occupational retraining.

The arbitrator found that the applicant remained substantially unable to perform his essential tasks until he completed a physical reconditioning program, extending his entitlement to benefits.

The arbitrator also determined the quantum of benefits by applying an 'avoidable expenses' approach to calculate the applicant's pre-accident gross weekly income.

The claim for occupational retraining was dismissed as the applicant was found capable of returning to his pre-accident occupation with reasonable modifications.

The applicant, a self-employed plumber, was injured in a motor vehicle accident and claimed statutory accident benefits.

The insurer paid weekly income benefits at the minimum level and later terminated them, arguing the applicant was no longer disabled.

The arbitrator found the applicant's evidence regarding his pre-accident income to be unreliable and calculated his weekly income benefit based on corroborated work performed in the four weeks prior to the accident.

Relying on medical assessments and video surveillance showing the applicant playing softball, the arbitrator concluded he was capable of returning to work by December 1993 and denied benefits beyond February 1994.

The insurer was permitted to deduct post-accident employment income but was denied repayment of benefits previously paid.

Claims for transportation expenses for swimming were partially allowed, while claims for damaged clothing and a special award were dismissed.

Expenses of the arbitration were denied due to the applicant's misleading evidence.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and applied for statutory accident benefits.

The insurer paid a minimum weekly income benefit of $185.60, disputing the applicant's self-reported income as an independent newspaper carrier.

Following an arbitration hearing, the arbitrator determined that independent documentation corroborated the applicant's income, entitling him to the maximum weekly benefit of $600.

The arbitrator also granted a $4,000 special award against the insurer for unreasonably withholding benefits despite possessing independent verification of the applicant's income.

The applicant, a real estate agent, was injured in a motor vehicle accident and applied for statutory accident benefits.

The insurer disputed the calculation of her pre-accident income, arguing that commissions received after the accident for sales negotiated before the accident should not be included in her pre-accident income.

The arbitrator held that the commissions were earned prior to the accident when the work was performed, and should be included in the calculation of her pre-accident income.

The applicant was awarded weekly income benefits of $600.00, and the insurer's claim for repayment was dismissed.