Dr. H. Cameron

The plaintiffs appealed a jury award of $750 in damages arising from a motor vehicle accident.

The central issue on appeal was whether the trial judge erred in his charge to the jury by failing to instruct them that the defendant bears the onus of proving the plaintiff failed to mitigate her damages.

The Divisional Court found that the omission was a significant error on a critical legal issue that left the jury with a misapprehension of the applicable legal principles.

Concluding that the error caused a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice, the Court allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial on the issue of damages.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and claimed income replacement benefits (IRBs).

The insurer denied IRBs on the basis that the applicant continued to receive her full salary from her employer, a closely-held corporation in which she and her husband were majority shareholders.

The arbitrator found that the payments made while the applicant was completely unable to work were a loan, not employment income, and therefore not deductible from IRBs.

However, the full salary paid during periods when she returned to work part-time was deductible as post-accident employment income, as her work was commercially productive.

The arbitrator also determined that the applicant was substantially disabled for specific periods, but not continuously, relying on independent medical and functional assessments over her subjective reports of pain.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and received weekly income benefits for 156 weeks.

The insurer terminated benefits, arguing the applicant did not meet the stricter disability test under section 12(5)(b) of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The arbitrator determined that the 156-week period refers to 156 weeks of disability, not 156 weeks from the accident date.

On the merits, the arbitrator found that while the applicant could not return to his heavy pre-accident work as a millwright, he had transferrable skills and was capable of engaging in suitable light-duty employment.

The claim for ongoing weekly income benefits was dismissed.

The arbitrator also denied the applicant's claim for a special award, finding the insurer did not unreasonably withhold payments, but awarded the applicant his arbitration expenses.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and received weekly income benefits from the insurer for 156 weeks.

The insurer terminated benefits, arguing the applicant did not meet the test for disability under section 12(5)(b) of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The arbitrator found that the applicant was continuously prevented from engaging in any suitable employment due to physical and psychological impairments caused by the accident.

The arbitrator also found the insurer acted unreasonably in terminating benefits without sufficient medical evidence or providing vocational retraining, and awarded a special lump sum of $5,000.

Finally, the arbitrator ruled that the insurer is entitled to deduct 100 per cent of collateral benefits received by the applicant.

The insurer appealed an arbitration order granting the insured weekly benefits and housekeeping expenses following a motor vehicle accident.

The insurer argued the arbitrator misconstrued medical evidence regarding the insured's ability to perform essential tasks and erred in awarding housekeeping expenses for services provided by family members.

The Director of Arbitrations dismissed the appeal, finding the arbitrator's conclusions on disability were supported by the evidence.

The Director also upheld the housekeeping award, confirming that paragraph 6(1)(f) of the Schedule allows compensation for reasonable services provided by family members when required for the insured's care or rehabilitation.