Scott Walters

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following an alleged motor vehicle collision.

The insurer denied the claim, arguing that no 'accident' occurred.

At a preliminary issue hearing, the arbitrator reviewed engineering evidence and found significant inconsistencies between the physical damage to the vehicles and the reported mechanics of the collision.

Given these inconsistencies and other suspicious circumstances, including pre-existing vehicle damage and unsupported medical claims, the arbitrator concluded the applicant failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that she was involved in an accident as defined in the Schedule.

The appellant appealed an Arbitrator's decision denying a special award under s. 282(10) of the Insurance Act.

The insurer had denied accident benefits based on an engineering report and suspicions of a staged accident, partly due to the common ethnicity of the individuals involved.

The Director's Delegate found that the Arbitrator erred in law by failing to provide adequate reasons for concluding that the insurer reasonably relied on the engineering report, especially after the expert's testimony undermined the report's conclusions.

The appeal was allowed and the issue of the special award was returned to arbitration.

The applicant claimed accident benefits following a rear-end collision.

The insurer denied the claim, alleging the accident was staged and citing suspicious factors including the parties' shared ethnic background.

At arbitration, both parties presented accident reconstruction experts whose evidence the arbitrator rejected as unreliable.

However, based on the consistent testimony of the applicant and his passenger, supported by physical evidence such as paint transfer and airbag deployment, the arbitrator found the accident did occur.

The applicant's claim for a special award under s. 282(10) of the Insurance Act was dismissed; although the arbitrator condemned the insurer's consideration of race as a suspicious factor, he found the insurer had principally and reasonably relied on its expert's opinion to deny the claim.

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

The insurer terminated benefits and sought repayment, alleging the applicants wilfully misrepresented the circumstances of the accident.

Relying on uncontroverted expert accident reconstruction evidence, the arbitrator found the accident could not have occurred as described by the applicants.

The arbitrator concluded the applicants wilfully misrepresented material facts and ordered them to repay the income replacement, housekeeping, and medical benefits paid directly to them, totaling $14,536.12 for one applicant and $16,973.63 for the other, plus interest.

The applicants were also ordered to pay the insurer's arbitration expenses.

The applicants claimed statutory accident benefits following an alleged motor vehicle accident.

The insurer terminated benefits and argued the applicants were not involved in an accident as defined in the Schedule.

At a preliminary issue hearing, the arbitrator found significant inconsistencies in the applicants' evidence regarding the mechanics of the collision and the aftermath.

Relying on these inconsistencies and the expert evidence of an accident reconstruction engineer, who opined that the damage was inconsistent with the reported collision, the arbitrator concluded the applicants failed to prove they were involved in an accident.

The applicants were precluded from proceeding to arbitration, and the insurer was entitled to pursue repayment of benefits paid.

The insurer appealed an arbitration decision finding that the claimant was involved in a motor vehicle accident, arguing the accident was staged.

The insurer relied on expert accident reconstruction evidence and testimony from the other vehicle's owner, who claimed she gave her keys to someone to arrange a fictitious accident.

The Director's Delegate dismissed the appeal, holding that the Arbitrator's factual findings were supported by evidence.

The Arbitrator committed no error of law in concluding that the claimant's memory may have been affected by trauma and the lapse of time, and in finding no evidence that the claimant participated in a conspiracy to stage the accident.

The appellant appealed his conviction for first-degree murder, arguing that the trial judge made erroneous evidentiary rulings and errors in the jury charge.

The evidentiary issues included the refusal of a courtroom voice demonstration and the admission of post-offence conduct evidence.

The jury charge issues involved instructions on post-offence conduct, eyewitness identification, bad character evidence, the application of the W.(D.) framework, the presentation of the defence theory, and the trial judge's expression of opinion.

The Court of Appeal found no reversible errors in the trial judge's rulings or instructions and dismissed the appeal.

The applicants claimed to have been injured in a motor vehicle accident and applied for statutory accident benefits.

The insurer denied the benefits, alleging that the applicants wilfully misrepresented material facts by claiming they were involved in an accident that did not occur as described.

Relying on expert evidence in accident reconstruction, the arbitrator found that the physical damage to the vehicles was inconsistent with the applicants' accounts.

The arbitrator concluded that the applicants deliberately misrepresented material facts and were therefore precluded from receiving accident benefits under section 48 of the Schedule.

The applicants' claims for income replacement and medical benefits were dismissed, and they were ordered to pay the insurer's arbitration expenses.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following an alleged motor vehicle accident.

The insurer terminated benefits, arguing that the accident was staged and did not occur as described.

The arbitrator heard evidence from the applicant, the owner of the other vehicle (who testified her car was used by someone else in a fraudulent scheme), and a forensic engineering expert retained by the insurer.

The arbitrator found the applicant's testimony credible despite minor inconsistencies and expert evidence suggesting different collision mechanics.

The arbitrator concluded that the applicant was involved in a genuine collision and did not participate in staging the accident.