James Evan Sterling Allin

The appellant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and developed severe fibromyalgia and chronic pain.

She appealed an arbitrator's decision denying her claims for various assistive devices, a hot tub, an electric bed, and replacement farm labour costs under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The Director's Delegate upheld the arbitrator's denial of the hot tub, exercise equipment, and replacement farm labour, agreeing that the labour costs were a business expense rather than a rehabilitation need.

However, the Director's Delegate reversed the arbitrator's decision regarding the electric bed, finding it reasonably required for the appellant's rehabilitation to manage chronic pain.

The order was also varied to correct the calculation of CPP disability benefit deductions.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and received statutory accident benefits, including weekly income and supplementary medical benefits, until April 1994.

She applied for arbitration to reinstate these benefits, claiming she suffered from chronic pain that prevented her from returning to her pre-accident job as a security guard.

The arbitrator reviewed medical evidence and video surveillance showing the applicant performing various physical activities, including shopping and shoveling snow.

The arbitrator preferred the evidence of the insurer's rehabilitation specialist and concluded the applicant no longer suffered a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of her employment.

The claims for ongoing benefits were dismissed, though the applicant was awarded her arbitration expenses.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought weekly income benefits.

Prior to the accident, he and his wife ran a business, with the applicant performing heavy labour and administrative duties.

Following the accident, the applicant's wife took over the administrative duties, though the applicant remained physically capable of performing them.

The arbitrator found that the reallocation of duties was a lifestyle decision rather than a result of the accident.

Consequently, the arbitrator declined to alter the pre-accident income allocation, finding that the applicant's post-accident income exceeded the benefits payable.

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

The Applicant, a farmer, was injured in a motor vehicle accident and claimed ongoing weekly income benefits after the Insurer terminated them.

The Insurer argued the Applicant was no longer substantially disabled and that a $1,500 payment from his father should be deducted as post-accident income.

The Arbitrator found the Applicant was substantially disabled from performing the essential heavy tasks of farming, such as driving a tractor and lifting machinery, supported by medical evidence.

The Arbitrator also held the $1,500 payment was a gift or loan, not earned income, and therefore not deductible.

The Applicant was awarded ongoing benefits and expenses.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits from her insurer.

The parties disputed the calculation of weekly income benefits for a self-employed farmer, specifically regarding the deduction of ceasing expenses, Canada Pension Plan disability benefits, and post-accident farm income.

The arbitrator determined the appropriate weekly income benefit amounts for 1991-1993.

The arbitrator also reviewed claims for supplementary medical and rehabilitation expenses, granting the cost of an exercise bike, bench, and cane, but denying claims for a hot tub, electric bed, replacement farm labour, and future housekeeping and transportation expenses.

The applicant sought an interim award of expenses for clinical notes and a medical-legal report under section 282(11.1) of the Insurance Act.

The insurer argued the section did not apply retrospectively to proceedings commenced before January 1, 1994.

The arbitrator held that the section applies immediately to all ongoing proceedings.

Applying a three-part test, the arbitrator found the application raised a bona fide issue, the expenses were necessary and reasonable, and the applicant was unable to carry the costs until the hearing.

The arbitrator awarded $800 in interim expenses.

The appellant insurer appealed an arbitrator's decision finding it responsible for paying the respondent's accident benefits.

The appellant argued the respondent failed to provide notice of her claim within the statutory time limits and lacked a reasonable excuse for the 16-month delay.

The Director of Arbitrations dismissed the appeal, upholding the arbitrator's finding that a combination of factors—including the respondent's initial claim to another insurer who paid expenses, incorrect documentation, and personal circumstances—constituted a reasonable excuse for the delay under section 22(2) of the No-Fault Benefits Schedule.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and initially applied for accident benefits from her son's insurer, The Personal, who paid her expenses for a year before realizing she had her own policy with Zurich.

The applicant then applied to Zurich, who denied the claim due to the delay in notice.

On a preliminary issue hearing, the arbitrator found that under section 268 of the Insurance Act, Zurich was the priority insurer.

The arbitrator also found that the applicant had a reasonable excuse for the delay in notifying Zurich, as The Personal's error in sending the wrong claim form and subsequent payment of benefits caused the delay.

Zurich was ordered to pay the applicant's accident benefits.

The union applied for certification of employees in the respondent's diagnostic services division.

A dispute arose over whether two employees who performed blood tests and electrocardiograms at a nursing home were 'hospital employees' under the Hospital Labour Disputes Arbitration Act.

The Board held that because the employer was not a hospital and the functions performed were not statutorily required of a nursing home, the employees were not 'hospital employees' within the meaning of the Act.