Jamie Robin Pollack

The applicant applied under s. 282(12) of the Insurance Act for the appointment of a new arbitrator, alleging that the current arbitrator demonstrated bias against her representatives in another case.

The Director of Arbitrations dismissed the application, finding no evidence of bias against the representatives or the applicant in the present case, relying on reasons detailed in a concurrent decision.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including income replacement and medical benefits.

The applicant failed to appear at the scheduled arbitration hearing despite receiving notice.

The arbitrator proceeded in her absence and dismissed the claims, finding that the applicant failed to meet the burden of proving her claims on a balance of probabilities.

The applicant was ordered to pay $1,800 in arbitration expenses to the insurer.

The appellant appealed a decision regarding the limitation period for claiming no-fault benefits.

The insurer had terminated benefits but had not provided a clear and unequivocal refusal to pay.

The Court of Appeal held that the two-year limitation period under s. 281(5) of the Insurance Act applies, which commences only upon a refusal to pay.

The six-year limitation period under s. 45(1)(g) of the Limitations Act does not apply because the Insurance Act specially limits the time for bringing an action.

The appeal was allowed.

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

A preliminary issue was raised regarding whether short-term disability payments received under the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act prior to the accident should be considered 'income from employment' for calculating his weekly income replacement benefits.

The arbitrator held that such payments do constitute 'income from employment' under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule, applying a purposive interpretation to avoid the absurdity of excluding them while allowing their deduction post-accident.

Following a decision ordering the insured to repay income replacement benefits due to misrepresentation, the insurer sought its expenses for the arbitration hearing.

The arbitrator found the insured's position was manifestly unfounded and an abuse of process.

The insurer was awarded $16,107.21 in legal fees, disbursements, and assessment fees.

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

The insurer terminated benefits and sought repayment, alleging the applicant wilfully misrepresented his employment status and income, and continued to operate his drywall business post-accident.

The arbitrator found the applicant was self-employed, had submitted a false income confirmation, and was capable of performing his essential duties.

The applicant's claims for ongoing benefits and a special award were dismissed.

The insurer's claim for repayment was granted, and the applicant was ordered to repay $51,761.86 due to wilful misrepresentation.

The Applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and received income replacement benefits until he returned to modified work.

After being laid off, he brought a motion for interim benefits, alleging financial need and a breach of the benefits stoppage provisions under section 64 of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The arbitrator dismissed the motion, finding that the Applicant's receipt of unemployment insurance benefits negated his claim of financial need.

The arbitrator also found it unclear whether section 64 applied to a consensual return to work, deferring that issue and quantum calculations to the hearing arbitrator.

A subsequent motion to reopen the hearing to admit new evidence was also dismissed.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and applied for statutory accident benefits from Kingsway, which denied coverage claiming the policy was cancelled.

The applicant then applied to Pafco, which paid some benefits but asserted Kingsway was the responsible insurer.

The applicant commenced arbitration against Kingsway at the Financial Services Commission of Ontario (FSCO).

Kingsway brought a motion to dismiss the arbitration, arguing that the dispute was essentially a priority dispute between insurers governed by O. Reg. 283/95, which must be resolved through private arbitration.

The arbitrator agreed, finding that the core issue was which insurer was responsible for paying benefits, not the applicant's entitlement to specific benefits.

Therefore, the issue of whether a valid policy existed between the applicant and Kingsway was outside the jurisdiction of a FSCO arbitrator.

The applicant, a real estate agent, was injured in a motor vehicle accident and claimed weekly income benefits.

The issue was whether a real estate commission from an agreement of purchase and sale executed before the 52-week pre-accident period, but which closed within that period, should be included in her pre-accident income calculation.

The arbitrator held that the commission was earned when the agreement became unconditional, which occurred prior to the 52-week period.

Therefore, the commission was excluded from the calculation, resulting in a weekly income benefit of $216.16.