Dr. Zaretsky

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident while riding his bicycle and sought a determination of catastrophic impairment.

The arbitrator found that the applicant suffered a marked impairment due to a mental or behavioural disorder, satisfying the criteria under section 2(1.2)(g) of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

However, the arbitrator concluded that the applicant did not meet the 55% whole person impairment threshold under section 2(1.2)(f), as the combined physical and psychological impairments amounted to 48%.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and commenced a court action for certain accident benefits.

She later applied for arbitration to determine if she sustained a catastrophic impairment.

A priority dispute determined that Certas, not Dominion, was the priority insurer.

The applicant sought to add Certas to the arbitration, while Certas sought to stay the arbitration, arguing all issues should be heard in the existing court action.

Applying the pragmatic balancing of interests test from Mangat, the arbitrator found that allowing both proceedings would create an unacceptable risk of inconsistent results regarding causation and credibility.

However, the arbitrator permitted the applicant to consolidate all issues in the arbitration, provided she seeks leave to withdraw or discontinue her court action, as this would result in the most just, quickest, and least expensive resolution.

Certas was added as a party, and Dominion remained a party to respond to a special award claim.