Dr. Harvey C. Stancer

The applicant, a military reservist, was struck by a motor vehicle and received weekly income benefits for 198 weeks.

The insurer terminated benefits, arguing the applicant could return to light sedentary work.

The arbitrator found that while the applicant was physically capable of light sedentary work, he was not 'reasonably suited' for such employment by his education, training, or experience, given his long career in a demanding military role.

The arbitrator also determined the correct quantum of the weekly benefit based on bank records, as official payroll records were unreliable.

The insurer's claim for repayment of prior overpaid benefits was dismissed because the applicant did not contribute to the error.

The Applicant sought ongoing weekly income benefits following a minor motor vehicle accident.

The Insurer terminated benefits after 10 months.

The Arbitrator found the Applicant's claims of disabling physical and psychological pain to be unsupported by objective medical evidence and contradicted by surveillance footage showing him engaging in normal activities without restriction.

The claim for ongoing benefits was dismissed.

The Applicant was awarded half of his arbitration expenses and the return of a $2,000 assessment fee, as the claim was not found to be frivolous or vexatious.

The applicant was involved in six motor vehicle accidents, two of which (November 1990 and December 1991) were the subject of this arbitration for statutory accident benefits.

The insurer argued the arbitration for the November 1990 accident was time-barred, but the arbitrator found the limitation period did not begin until the insurer provided written notice of refusal with reasons.

On the merits, the arbitrator found the applicant was not entitled to weekly income benefits under section 12 because he had not worked the required 180 days prior to either accident.

Furthermore, the applicant failed to establish a substantial inability to perform his essential tasks as a result of the subject accidents, as his limitations were primarily due to psychological issues stemming from an earlier accident.

The claims for benefits and a special award were dismissed, but the applicant was awarded his arbitration expenses due to the complexity of the case and the insurer's initial acceptance and subsequent denial of the claim.

The appellant, a First Class Constable, appealed a decision of the Board of Commissioners of Police discharging him due to a purported mental disability.

The appellant had suffered a series of jaw injuries and experienced fear and anxiety about potential reinjury.

The Commission found that under Section 27(e) of Regulation 791, a discharge for mental disability must be supported by the evidence of two legally qualified medical practitioners.

The medical evidence presented did not support a finding of mental disability, as both doctors indicated his fear was a normal and justified reaction to his previous trauma.

The Commission quashed the discharge and ordered the appellant reinstated.

The Commission also noted that under the Human Rights Code, the employer bears the onus of establishing that the appellant's physical disability could not be accommodated without undue hardship.