Mario Smolej

The defendant driver brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff passenger's action and the co-defendants' cross-claim against him following a motor vehicle collision.

The moving party argued the co-defendant lost control of his vehicle on a snow-covered highway and crossed into the moving party's lane on an on-ramp.

The co-defendant argued the collision occurred in the highway's right lane during a merge.

Applying the summary judgment framework, the court weighed the evidence, including independent witness testimony and accident reconstruction evidence, and found the moving party's version of events reliable.

The court concluded there was no genuine issue requiring a trial regarding the moving party's liability and dismissed the claims against him.

The insurer appealed an arbitrator's decision finding that the claimant was involved in a motor vehicle accident, arguing that the accident was staged and that the arbitrator failed to provide sufficient reasons for rejecting its expert and circumstantial evidence.

The Director's Delegate dismissed the appeal, holding that the arbitrator's reasons were adequate, that she properly assessed the claimant's credibility, and that her factual findings were entitled to deference.

The arbitrator was not required to engage in a detailed analysis of every piece of evidence, and there was no error of law in her preference for the claimant's direct evidence over the insurer's expert theories.

The Applicant applied for statutory accident benefits following an alleged motor vehicle accident.

The Insurer denied the benefits, alleging that the accident was staged and that the Applicant's vehicle was struck while stationary.

The Insurer relied on the reports of an investigator and two accident reconstruction experts who concluded the collision did not occur as described.

The Arbitrator found the Applicant to be a credible witness and accepted her version of events.

The Arbitrator gave little weight to the Insurer's expert reports because the experts did not examine the vehicles or interview the drivers, and relied on inaccurate information.

The Arbitrator concluded that the Applicant was involved in an accident as defined in section 2 of the Schedule.