Dr. J. Mayer

The appellant appealed a conviction for operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration exceeding 80 mg under s. 253(1)(b) of the Criminal Code.

He argued that the police officer lacked reasonable suspicion to make an approved screening device demand and that the trial judge erred in rejecting his evidence regarding alcohol consumption.

The Summary Conviction Appeal Court held that the constellation of factors—including departure from a bar near closing time, admission of recent drinking, and bloodshot eyes—objectively supported reasonable suspicion.

The court also found no reversible error in the trial judge’s credibility findings or rejection of the defence theory that mislabelled beer bottles explained the elevated readings.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed an arbitrator's decision finding that he did not suffer a catastrophic impairment as a result of a motor vehicle accident.

The appellant argued that the arbitrator erred in law by failing to order a new Catastrophic Impairment Designated Assessment Centre (CAT DAC) assessment after recognizing serious procedural flaws in the original DAC process, including the omission of his treating neurosurgeon's report and the failure to conduct a clinical assessment.

The Director's Delegate dismissed the appeal, holding that while there were substantial departures from the DAC Guidelines, the arbitrator had the authority and discretion to weigh the DAC report alongside all other evidence and was not required to order a new assessment.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits, claiming he was catastrophically impaired due to severe cervical spondolytic myelopathy causing quadriparesis.

The insurer denied the claim.

The arbitrator found that while the applicant suffered from a catastrophic impairment, it was not caused or materially contributed to by the motor vehicle accident.

The evidence demonstrated that the applicant's neurological decline was a result of the natural progression of his pre-existing degenerative condition, as his symptoms did not abruptly worsen immediately following the accident.

The late insured was involved in a motor vehicle accident while suffering from Stage IV metastatic lung cancer.

He died several months later.

His estate and family members applied for statutory accident benefits, including death benefits, funeral expenses, and the cost of installing a Jacuzzi, arguing that the accident-related injuries interrupted his cancer treatment and contributed to his death.

The arbitrator dismissed the claims, finding based on expert oncological evidence that the accident did not materially contribute to the progression of the cancer or the insured's death, which was inevitable due to the advanced disease.

The arbitrator also found that the stepson was not a dependant and that the Jacuzzi was neither a reasonable nor necessary medical or rehabilitation expense.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits for housekeeping and home maintenance expenses following a motor vehicle accident.

The applicant failed to attend the arbitration hearing.

The arbitrator proceeded in his absence and dismissed the claim, finding insufficient evidence to establish a substantial inability to perform pre-accident housekeeping duties.

The insurer's request to add claims for its expenses and for a frivolous proceeding was denied due to lack of notice to the applicant.

The applicant, who suffered from secondary progressive multiple sclerosis, was injured in a motor vehicle accident when she was knocked to the ground by a reversing truck.

She applied for statutory accident benefits, claiming the accident accelerated her deterioration and caused a complete inability to carry on a normal life.

The arbitrator found that while the accident caused a short-term exacerbation of her symptoms, it did not materially contribute to her long-term impairments or continuously prevent her from engaging in substantially all of her pre-accident activities.

Claims for non-earner benefits and assistive devices were dismissed, but the cost of two assessments was awarded as they were reasonably incurred.

The applicant was injured in a rear-end motor vehicle accident and applied for weekly income replacement benefits, which the insurer denied.

The applicant had a significant pre-existing history of back and arm injuries.

The arbitrator found that the applicant suffered soft tissue injuries in the accident that temporarily disabled him from his employment as a truck driver.

However, due to the severity of his pre-existing conditions and the lack of evidence showing long-term exacerbation caused by the accident, the arbitrator concluded the applicant returned to his pre-accident status within 24 weeks.

The applicant was awarded weekly income replacement benefits for 24 weeks, plus interest.

The Applicant sought ongoing weekly income benefits and medical/rehabilitation benefits following a rear-end motor vehicle accident.

The Insurer had terminated benefits based on surveillance evidence showing the Applicant performing heavy lifting, which contradicted his presentation during medical assessments.

The Arbitrator found the Applicant lacked credibility and that his ongoing complaints were primarily attributable to pre-existing obesity, severe sleep apnea, and degenerative back changes, rather than the accident.

The Applicant's claims for ongoing benefits and a special award were dismissed.

The Insurer's claim for repayment of benefits was also dismissed, as the Applicant did not materially contribute to the overpayment through error or fraud.