James Anthony Michael Wolfe

The defendant vehicle owner brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiffs' action and the co-defendant insurer's cross-claim against her, arguing she did not consent to the co-defendant driver possessing her vehicle at the time of the motor vehicle accident.

The co-defendant insurer opposed the motion, arguing implied consent.

The court first ruled that partial summary judgment was appropriate and ordered the production of the driver's statement to the owner's insurer, finding it was not protected by litigation privilege.

On the merits, the court found that the owner had explicitly forbidden the driver from using her car and that he took it without her knowledge or consent.

The court granted summary judgment in favour of the owner, dismissing the claims against her.

Following a preliminary issue hearing where the arbitrator found the applicant was not injured in an 'accident' as defined in the Schedule, the insurer sought its expenses.

The arbitrator awarded the insurer its expenses, noting it was entirely successful in the preliminary hearing and the applicant's delay in providing productions necessitated a resumption of the pre-hearing.

The arbitrator reduced the insurer's claimed hours, applying a 3:1 ratio for preparation to hearing time, and disallowed the cost of transcripts.

The applicant was ordered to pay the insurer's expenses fixed at $11,557.90.

The respondent was injured in a motor vehicle accident and commenced a court action for accident benefits within the limitation period.

Years later, she commenced an arbitration at the Financial Services Commission of Ontario (FSCO) for catastrophic impairment benefits.

The FSCO director's delegate ruled that under s. 281.1(1) of the Insurance Act, a claimant must choose a forum within the two-year limitation period and cannot switch forums after it expires.

The Divisional Court found this decision unreasonable.

The Court of Appeal allowed the insurer's appeal, holding that the delegate's interpretation was reasonable and did not place the respondent in an impossible position, as she could still pursue her catastrophic impairment claim within the existing court action.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and commenced a court action for accident benefits within the limitation period.

She later applied for arbitration regarding catastrophic impairment.

The priority insurer successfully moved to have the issues heard together in arbitration, but then argued the income replacement benefits claim was time-barred from being added to the arbitration.

The arbitrator ruled the claim was not time-barred, but the director's delegate reversed this decision.

On judicial review, the Divisional Court held that commencing a proceeding within two years of the refusal to pay fully satisfies the limitation requirement, even if the claim is subsequently added to a later proceeding.

The application for judicial review was granted.

The appellant insurer appealed an arbitrator's order allowing the insured to add an income replacement benefits (IRB) claim to an ongoing arbitration proceeding.

The insured had originally commenced a court action for IRBs within the two-year limitation period but later sought to add the IRB claim to an arbitration proceeding that was commenced more than two years after the insurer's refusal to pay.

The Director's Delegate allowed the appeal, holding that under s. 281.1(1) of the Insurance Act and s. 51(1) of the SABS, an insured must choose a forum within the two-year limitation period and cannot subsequently add the claim to a different forum outside that period.

The insured was therefore precluded from arbitrating the IRB claim.

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

A dispute arose regarding her entitlement to income replacement benefits and attendant care benefits, which she initially pursued through a court action.

She later sought to add these claims to an ongoing arbitration proceeding regarding her catastrophic impairment status.

The insurer argued that the claims were statute-barred from proceeding to arbitration under section 281.1 of the Insurance Act and section 51 of the Schedule.

The Arbitrator held that the claims were not statute-barred, finding that commencing a court action within two years of the insurer's refusal to pay fully satisfied the limitation requirement, and the claims could subsequently be added to the arbitration proceeding.

Furthermore, the insurer failed to properly terminate the attendant care benefits by not arranging a required DAC assessment.

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.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident while driving a tractor-trailer in Ohio, resulting in a collision that killed one person.

He was convicted of vehicular manslaughter and vehicular assault in the US.

He applied for statutory accident benefits.

The insurer denied housekeeping benefits based on the criminal conviction exclusion in s. 30 of the Schedule.

The arbitrator upheld this exclusion, finding it applies to convictions in any jurisdiction.

The arbitrator also dismissed the claims for caregiver and attendant care benefits, finding the applicant was not the primary caregiver before the accident and did not suffer a substantial inability to perform his pre-accident activities, relying heavily on surveillance video showing him performing strenuous truck repairs.

However, the arbitrator ordered the insurer to pay for previously approved medical treatment and assessments, and granted a special award against the insurer for unreasonably withholding these payments.

The insurer brought a motion to exclude the applicants' representative from the arbitration proceedings due to an alleged conflict of interest.

The representative was the sole director of a company that acted as a booking agent and promoter for the medical assessment facility used by the applicants.

The arbitrator found that the representative had a direct or indirect financial interest in the acceptance of the facility's technology as a compensable benefit, which he failed to disclose to the insurer.

Applying the test from MacDonald Estate, the arbitrator concluded the representative was in a conflict of interest and excluded him from representing the applicants to preserve the integrity of the hearing process.