Dr. Garson Conn

The applicant, a pedestrian struck by a motor vehicle, sought statutory accident benefits including housekeeping, attendant care, and income replacement benefits.

The arbitrator dismissed the claim for housekeeping benefits as the insurer had already paid the amount claimed.

The arbitrator awarded attendant care benefits for the period before the applicant submitted the required Form 1, finding it was submitted within a reasonable time.

The claim for ongoing income replacement benefits was dismissed because the medical evidence, including reports from the applicant's own assessors, and the applicant's unreliable testimony failed to establish a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of her pre-accident employment.

In a personal injury action arising from a motor vehicle collision where liability was admitted and damages remained in issue, the plaintiff moved to exclude evidence from experts who prepared accident benefits reports for the plaintiff’s insurer.

The plaintiff argued the reports were irrelevant, non-compliant with Rule 53.03 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, prejudicial to trial fairness, and duplicative.

The court held that although the experts had not signed the Form 53 acknowledgement required under Rule 53.03(2.1), the rule applied even to experts retained by non-parties and the non‑compliance could be cured by granting leave subject to obtaining the acknowledgement.

The court found portions of the reports remained relevant to the plaintiff’s cognitive, emotional, and physical condition at an intermediate stage following the accident, though opinions on employability were excluded as no longer relevant.

The motion to exclude the expert evidence was dismissed, subject to conditions.

The applicant was struck by a bus and claimed ongoing income replacement benefits for soft tissue injuries.

The arbitrator dismissed the claim, finding the applicant lacked credibility because she had returned to part-time work and full-time college studies involving physical activity without disclosing this to health assessors.

The insurer's claim for repayment of $1,741.28 in benefits was also dismissed because the insurer failed to provide the required repayment notice within twelve months.

The appellant appealed an arbitrator's decision denying her claim for a digital motion x-ray (DMX) expense and failing to address her claim for a special award following a motor vehicle accident.

The Director's Delegate upheld the arbitrator's finding that the DMX test was not reasonable or necessary under section 24 of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule, as it was conducted long after treatment ceased and was too remote from any potential benefits.

The Delegate varied the order to explicitly dismiss the claim for a special award, finding no evidence of insurer misconduct to justify it.

The appeal was otherwise dismissed.

The applicant sustained soft tissue injuries in a rear-end motor vehicle collision and sought statutory accident benefits, including caregiver benefits, housekeeping expenses, medical rehabilitation, and the cost of a digital motion x-ray (DMX).

The insurer denied the claims, arguing the applicant's injuries should have resolved within normal healing times.

The arbitrator found the applicant suffered a substantial inability to perform her pre-accident caregiver and heavier housekeeping duties for a limited period, awarding reduced amounts due to exaggerated claims.

The arbitrator also awarded partial medical and rehabilitation benefits, finding the applicant's pre-existing poor posture delayed her recovery beyond the standard guidelines.

The claim for the DMX test was dismissed, as the technique lacked general diagnostic approval in Canada, the expert promoting it lacked independence, and the test was conducted too remotely from the applicant's treatment period to be considered a reasonable expense.

The appellant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and received weekly income benefits until they were terminated by the insurer.

An arbitrator upheld the termination, finding the appellant was substantially able to perform the essential tasks of his employment as a band saw operator.

On appeal, the appellant argued the arbitrator erred in her assessment of the medical evidence and credibility.

The Director of Arbitrations dismissed the appeal, holding that the arbitrator's findings of fact and credibility were supported by the evidence and that it is not the appellate function to re-weigh evidence absent a palpable error.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits, including weekly benefits and housekeeping and care benefits, following a motor vehicle accident.

The arbitrator dismissed all claims, finding the applicant and her witnesses lacked credibility.

Surveillance evidence and testimony from an insurance broker contradicted the applicant's claims of severe disability.

The arbitrator concluded the claim was fraudulent and denied the applicant's request for a special award and expenses.