Ivan Luxenberg

Counsel for the applicant sought an order to be removed as counsel of record, citing an irreparable breakdown in the solicitor-client relationship.

The applicant's litigation guardian opposed the motion, arguing that withdrawal shortly before the scheduled arbitration hearing would be unfair.

The arbitrator found that significant mistrust had developed and the client no longer accepted counsel's advice or assessment of the case.

Concluding that the relationship had completely broken down, the arbitrator granted the motion, removed counsel from the record, and vacated the upcoming hearing dates to allow the applicant time to retain new counsel.

The appellant appealed an Arbitrator's decision dismissing his claim for income replacement benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The appellant argued the Arbitrator erred in assessing the evidence, admitting surveillance videotapes that post-dated the claim period, and finding that the insured bears the onus of proving ongoing entitlement to benefits after an insurer terminates them.

The Director's Delegate dismissed the appeal, holding that the Arbitrator's credibility findings and reliance on the insurer's medical experts were amply supported by the evidence.

The Delegate further held that the surveillance evidence was properly admitted to assess credibility and that the ultimate burden of proving entitlement to benefits remains on the insured person.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits, including income replacement benefits, medical benefits, and visiting expenses for his parents.

The insurer terminated benefits, arguing the applicant was not substantially disabled.

The arbitrator found the applicant lacked credibility, noting numerous inconsistencies in his medical history, functional abilities, and income reporting, which were further undermined by surveillance evidence showing him working and moving without apparent difficulty.

The arbitrator concluded the applicant did not suffer significant physical or psychological injuries as a result of the accident and dismissed all claims.

Following an arbitration decision that denied the applicant's claims for statutory accident benefits due to pervasive credibility issues, the parties sought their respective expenses of the proceeding.

The arbitrator found no basis to order the applicant to pay the insurer's expenses.

However, balancing the applicant's lack of credibility against the complexity of the case and the principle of facilitating access to the dispute resolution system, the arbitrator awarded the applicant one-third of his arbitration expenses.

The applicant applied for arbitration regarding her entitlement to loss of earning capacity benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The insurer raised a preliminary issue, arguing the applicant was precluded from proceeding to arbitration because she refused to attend an updated insurer's medical examination.

The arbitrator found the insurer's request for a single updated examination by a doctor who had previously examined the applicant was reasonable and not overly onerous.

The applicant was ordered to attend the examination before proceeding to arbitration.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a series of altercations and collisions with another driver that began in a car wash.

The arbitrator found that while the initial collisions were 'accidents' under the Schedule, the subsequent physical assault and the applicant's intentional ramming of the other vehicle were not.

The application was dismissed because the applicant, who was repeatedly disruptive and abusive during the hearing, failed to provide credible evidence of disability, causation, or income loss.

The arbitrator concluded the hearing early due to the applicant's contemptuous and abusive behaviour, which constituted an abuse of process.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a series of incidents that began with a minor collision in a car wash, escalated to a physical assault by the other driver, and culminated in the applicant intentionally ramming the other driver's vehicle under a tractor-trailer.

The arbitrator found that while the initial collisions were 'accidents' under the Schedule, the assault and the intentional ramming were not.

The application for weekly income benefits was dismissed because the applicant, who repeatedly disrupted the hearing and abused the process, failed to provide credible evidence of disability, causation, or income.

The hearing was ultimately concluded early due to the applicant's abusive and contemptuous behaviour.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and applied for statutory accident benefits.

After his benefits were terminated, he applied for arbitration but failed to appear at the scheduled hearing.

The arbitrator dismissed the application due to the applicant's failure to prove his case.

The insurer requested reimbursement of the $2,000 assessment fee under subsection 282(11.2) of the Insurance Act, arguing the application was frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process.

The arbitrator denied the request, finding that the applicant's failure to appear did not automatically render the application entirely devoid of merit or an abuse of process.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and received statutory accident benefits.

He later signed a full and final release in exchange for a $50,000 lump sum payment.

He subsequently sought further benefits, arguing the agreement should be set aside due to misrepresentation, undue influence, and unconscionability.

The Arbitrator found that the insurer did not misrepresent the potential for future benefits, did not exercise undue influence, and that the settlement was not unconscionable.

The agreement was held to be binding, and the application for further benefits was dismissed.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and received statutory accident benefits before signing a full and final release in exchange for a lump sum settlement.

He later sought further benefits, arguing the settlement should be set aside due to misrepresentation, unconscionability, and undue influence.

The arbitrator held that while arbitrators can determine if a settlement agreement exists as a defence to a claim for benefits, they lack the equitable jurisdiction to set aside an otherwise valid agreement.

The applicant is precluded from proceeding with the arbitration until a court of competent jurisdiction sets aside the settlement agreement.

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

He applied for statutory accident benefits from both the insurer of the taxicab and his personal automobile insurer.

The insurers disputed priority.

The arbitrator held that the applicant's personal insurer was responsible for paying the benefits, as the applicant was a named insured under his personal policy, and the priority rules under section 268 of the Insurance Act require an insured to look to their own insurer first, despite the commercial use exclusion in the personal policy.

The applicant sought the cost of a Vigano couch or a chair as a supplementary medical and rehabilitation benefit following a motor vehicle accident.

The insurer denied the claim and sought repayment of funds previously advanced for an orthopaedic mattress, alleging fraud.

The arbitrator dismissed the applicant's claim, finding the specific couch ordered was not firm as prescribed by his doctor.

The arbitrator ordered the applicant to repay $388.48 to the insurer, as he had fraudulently pocketed the difference between the funds advanced for a queen-sized mattress and the cheaper twin beds he actually purchased.

The applicant was denied his expenses for the arbitration.

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 minor rear-end motor vehicle accident and received statutory accident benefits until December 29, 1992.

He applied for arbitration to claim ongoing weekly benefits, alleging disability from neck and low back pain.

The insurer raised a preliminary issue that mediation had not taken place because the applicant was in Sweden, but the arbitrator found the applicant had participated in good faith.

On the merits, the arbitrator found that the applicant did not have a legitimate job offer at the time of the accident and was not substantially unable to perform his essential tasks after December 29, 1992.

The arbitrator concluded that the accident did not significantly contribute to the applicant's ongoing low back problems, which were largely pre-existing.

The claim for ongoing benefits was dismissed, but the applicant was awarded his arbitration expenses.

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

The applicant sought arbitration for ongoing weekly income benefits, claiming an inability to perform his pre-accident duties as a health care aide due to back pain.

The arbitrator reviewed medical evidence and the physical demands of the occupation, concluding that the applicant did not suffer a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of his employment.

The claim for ongoing weekly income benefits was dismissed, though the applicant was awarded arbitration expenses.