Hassan Fancy

The Appellant was successful in her appeal of an arbitration decision regarding catastrophic impairment.

She sought $64,003.46 in legal expenses for the appeal.

The Respondent argued the amount was excessive and disproportionate.

The Director's Delegate found the Appellant was entitled to her reasonable expenses, noting her complete success and the novel issues raised.

However, due to the lack of dockets and the excessive hours claimed compared to the Respondent, the Delegate reduced the fee claim to match the Respondent's estimated hours, awarding a total of $21,403.31 inclusive of disbursements and HST.

The Appellant appealed an Arbitrator's decision finding she had not sustained a catastrophic impairment following a motor vehicle accident.

The Director's Delegate allowed the appeal, finding the Arbitrator erred in law by refusing to rate the Appellant's left upper extremity and right knee impairments because they had not stabilized, and by failing to properly address and rate her claimed sleep disorder and chronic pain.

The preliminary issue of catastrophic impairment was returned to arbitration for a new hearing.

The appellant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and applied for statutory accident benefits, claiming a catastrophic impairment.

An arbitrator found the appellant did not sustain a catastrophic impairment and directed the parties to request an expense hearing if they could not agree on legal expenses.

The appellant appealed the preliminary decision and sought a stay of the expense hearing.

The Director's Delegate accepted the appeal, finding it raised important and novel issues, including whether impairments should be rated before future surgery.

The Delegate also granted a stay of the expense hearing, concluding it would be more cost-effective and efficient to determine the appeal first, as the expense hearing would likely duplicate the appeal issues.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought a determination that she sustained a catastrophic impairment under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The applicant relied on assessments indicating a 74% whole person impairment, while the insurer's assessors concluded she had a 31% combined impairment.

The arbitrator rejected the applicant's primary expert evidence, finding the assessor opined outside his expertise and acted as an advocate.

Preferring the insurer's experts and finding the applicant's evidence lacked credibility, the arbitrator concluded the applicant's combined physical and mental impairments resulted in a 28% whole person impairment.

The application for catastrophic impairment benefits was dismissed.