Harry Brown

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident while driving a taxicab.

He applied for statutory accident benefits from the insurer of the taxicab fleet (Coachman) and the insurer of his spouse's personal vehicle (Citadel).

The insurers settled the applicant's claim but disputed priority.

The arbitrator found that despite the policy exclusion for carrying passengers for compensation, the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule prevailed, making the applicant an 'insured person' under both policies.

Under the priority rules in section 268(5) of the Insurance Act, the applicant, as the spouse of a named insured under the Citadel policy, was required to claim benefits from Citadel.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and received statutory accident benefits from the insurer until they were terminated.

The parties subsequently met and the applicant signed a release in exchange for a $2,000 lump sum payment.

The applicant later sought to arbitrate her entitlement to further benefits, alleging she did not sign the release, or alternatively, that the settlement was vitiated by mistake, duress, or inequality of bargaining power.

The arbitrator found that the applicant did sign the release, relying on expert handwriting evidence, and that there were no vitiating factors.

The arbitration was deemed frivolous and an abuse of process, and the applicant was ordered to pay $1,000 to the insurer.

The Applicant was seriously injured in a motor vehicle accident and claimed statutory accident benefits.

The parties disputed the amount payable to the Applicant's wife for caregiving services, the calculation of the Applicant's pre-accident income, and whether collateral benefits should be deducted on a net or gross basis.

The Arbitrator awarded $17,208 for care benefits based on a minimum wage rate, plus a visiting allowance.

The Arbitrator also determined the Applicant's pre-accident income by averaging his earnings over the 52 weeks prior to the accident and held that collateral benefits must be deducted from weekly income benefits on a gross, rather than net, basis.

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

The applicant brought a preliminary motion seeking interim reinstatement of benefits and challenging the insurer's right to require medical examinations by multiple practitioners after terminating benefits.

The arbitrator held that the insurer may require examinations under section 23(2) of the No-Fault Benefits Schedule even after terminating benefits, and that the Schedule permits examinations by more than one qualified medical practitioner.

The arbitrator also found no statutory authority to grant an interim order reinstating weekly income benefits pending the final disposition.

The Applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and claimed no-fault benefits.

A priority dispute arose between State Farm (the father's insurer) and Pilot (the insurer of the vehicle the Applicant occupied).

The issue was whether the 20-year-old Applicant, who lived at home and contributed his full-time earnings to a family pool controlled by his father, was "principally dependent for financial support" on his parents under section 3(2) of the No-Fault Benefits Schedule.

The arbitrator found that the Applicant's financial contributions exceeded his share of household expenses, making him essentially self-supporting.

Despite his social and cultural dependence on his father, the statutory test requires financial dependence.

The arbitrator concluded the Applicant was not principally dependent on his parents and must seek benefits from Pilot.

The applicant sought continued weekly income benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The insurer had terminated benefits and claimed an overpayment, arguing the applicant was no longer substantially disabled and had received collateral income.

The applicant failed to attend the arbitration hearing or provide required documentation.

Relying on the insurer's medical evidence and the applicant's lack of proof, the arbitrator determined the correct weekly benefit amount, upheld the termination of benefits, and ordered the applicant to repay $26,088.76 in overpaid benefits.

The applicant, a full-time master's student and teaching assistant, was injured in a motor vehicle accident.

She applied for weekly income benefits under the No-Fault Benefits Schedule.

The insurer disputed whether she should claim under section 12 (employed) or section 13 (non-earner).

The arbitrator found that the applicant was employed as a teaching assistant at the time of the accident and suffered a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of her occupation.

The arbitrator awarded weekly income benefits under section 12 from November 1990 to December 1991, deducting a portion of her teaching assistant salary and a summer bursary.

The Applicants were injured in a motor vehicle accident and applied for no-fault weekly income benefits.

They argued that the value of their unpaid services in renovating a cottage for their business should be included in calculating their pre-accident gross weekly income, and alternatively, that their partnership agreement constituted an offer of employment.

The arbitrator held that the statutory definition of income does not include the imputed value of unpaid services.

The arbitrator further held that the partnership agreement did not constitute a legitimate offer of employment under the No-Fault Benefits Schedule.

The Applicants were entitled only to the minimum statutory benefit.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident two days after starting a new job.

The insurer calculated his weekly income benefits by averaging his income over the full 52 weeks prior to the accident, resulting in a benefit of $304.53 per week.

The applicant argued his benefits should be based on his regular weekly rate at the time of the accident.

The arbitrator held that under Section 12(7) of the No-Fault Benefits Schedule, the applicant's gross weekly income should be calculated by averaging his income over the weeks he was actually employed in the 52 weeks before the accident, disregarding periods of unemployment.

This resulted in the applicant being entitled to the maximum weekly benefit of $600.00.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and applied for arbitration regarding her continuing entitlement to weekly income and care benefits after they were terminated.

The insurer sought to raise additional issues, including repayment of care benefits already paid, repayment of transportation expenses, and a ruling that it was not required to pay rehabilitation expenses.

The arbitrator held that she had jurisdiction to determine issues related to the specific benefits raised by the applicant, including the insurer's claim for repayment of those benefits.

However, the arbitrator lacked jurisdiction to determine disputes over entirely different benefits (transportation and rehabilitation expenses) that the applicant had not referred to arbitration.