James M. Brown

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits for housekeeping and attendant care.

The insurer terminated housekeeping benefits after an occupational therapy assessment concluded the applicant only needed minimal help with gardening.

The applicant withdrew his claim for attendant care benefits at the hearing.

The arbitrator found the applicant failed to prove a substantial inability to perform his pre-accident housekeeping tasks, as the evidence regarding his limitations was unclear and contradictory.

The application was dismissed, and the applicant was ordered to pay the insurer's arbitration expenses.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and received income replacement benefits until they were terminated by the insurer following a Designated Assessment Centre (DAC) report.

The applicant brought a motion for interim benefits pending the arbitration hearing, arguing the DAC report was flawed and the insurer blatantly disregarded the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The arbitrator dismissed the motion, finding no blatant disregard of the Schedule, no extraordinary financial urgency or necessity, and contradictory medical evidence that did not establish a clear prima facie case for entitlement.

Both parties were ordered to bear their own expenses.

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

A dispute arose and the applicant applied for arbitration.

During a pre-hearing discussion, the applicant's counsel advised of a breakdown in the solicitor-client relationship and sought to be removed from the record, with the applicant's consent.

The applicant also sought to withdraw the arbitration application without costs.

The insurer consented to both requests.

The arbitrator ordered the removal of the solicitors from the record and the withdrawal of the arbitration without costs.

The insurer brought a motion to adjourn the arbitration hearing because its expert witness was away on sabbatical.

The applicant opposed the adjournment, noting she had already waited almost a year for a hearing regarding ongoing income replacement benefits and prescription expenses.

The arbitrator denied the adjournment request, finding that a further nine-month delay was unacceptable.

The hearing was ordered to commence as scheduled, but the insurer was permitted to arrange one additional hearing day before May 31, 2006, for the expert to testify if he could not attend the scheduled dates.