Dr. Ezra Silverstein

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought income replacement benefits (IRBs) and rehabilitation benefits from her insurer.

She continued to work as a process server for several months post-accident before stopping due to chronic pain.

The arbitrator found that the applicant suffered a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of her employment and awarded IRBs for 103 weeks, plus an additional 9 weeks during a crisis period when she was completely unable to engage in any employment.

The arbitrator also awarded rehabilitation benefits for a driver education instructor course, finding it was a reasonable and necessary measure to reintegrate her into the labour market.

The insurer's failure to promptly advise the applicant that a treatment plan was required precluded it from relying on her failure to submit one.

A claim for a special award was dismissed as the insurer's reliance on its medical expert was not unreasonable.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits, including income replacement and supplementary medical expenses, following a motor vehicle accident.

The insurer terminated benefits and sought repayment, alleging wilful misrepresentation due to the applicant's failure to disclose multiple other motor vehicle accidents and pre-existing injuries.

The arbitrator found the applicant to be an unreliable historian and concluded he failed to prove that his ongoing complaints were caused by the subject accident or that they prevented him from working.

The claims for benefits and a special award were dismissed.

The arbitrator ordered the applicant to repay all benefits received after a subsequent undisclosed accident, finding his failure to report it constituted wilful misrepresentation.

The insurer's request for an assessment against the applicant for a frivolous arbitration was denied.

The appellant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and claimed weekly income benefits for chronic pain and depression.

The arbitrator denied the claim, finding the appellant not credible based on alleged pre-existing conditions, surveillance evidence, and hearing observations.

On appeal, the Director's Delegate found that the arbitrator made serious factual errors regarding the pre-accident medical records and misapprehended the surveillance evidence.

Because these errors undermined the core credibility findings, the appeal was allowed, the arbitration order was rescinded, and the matter was remitted for a new hearing before a different arbitrator.