Jason Goodman

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident while in the course of his employment.

He commenced a tort action and claimed statutory accident benefits.

The WSIAT determined that his tort action was barred by the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act, 1997.

The insurer denied accident benefits on the basis that the applicant was entitled to workers' compensation benefits.

The Tribunal initially held that the WSIAT decision had no effect on the accident benefits claim.

On reconsideration, the Executive Chair cancelled the Tribunal's decision and dismissed the application, finding that the exception in s. 61(2) of the Schedule only applies to actions an injured worker is legally entitled to commence.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident while working as a truck driver.

He commenced a tort action and applied for statutory accident benefits.

The insurer argued that the applicant was statute-barred from proceeding to arbitration under s. 61 of the Schedule because he was entitled to WSIB benefits and his tort action was not bona fide.

The arbitrator found that the tort action was instituted bona fide and not primarily for the purpose of claiming statutory accident benefits.

The applicant was therefore not statute-barred from proceeding to arbitration.

The Minister of Finance appealed an arbitrator's preliminary award concerning an automobile insurance policy.

Echelon General Insurance Company had attempted to cancel a six-month policy for non-payment, but the cancellation was invalid due to non-compliance with the notice requirements of s. 236 of the Insurance Act.

The arbitrator ruled the policy expired at the end of its term, not extended by s. 236.

The Superior Court of Justice allowed the appeal, holding that s. 236(5) unambiguously states a contract of insurance remains in force until the statutory notice provisions for renewal or non-renewal are complied with.

The court found that Echelon's policy was not properly cancelled and therefore remained in force at the time of the accident, overriding common law contract principles regarding policy expiry.

This endorsement addresses procedural matters in an appeal concerning child support and s.7 expenses.

The court scheduled a settlement conference prior to the appeal hearing, emphasizing the exchange of offers to settle.

It also issued an order allowing for a paperless/electronic appeal, with counsel responsible for ensuring technology is in place, and requiring a paper copy of the respondent's factum.

Following an arbitration where the applicant's claim for statutory accident benefits was dismissed, the insurer sought its expenses.

The arbitrator found that the applicant was completely unsuccessful and that the proceeding was vexatious and unnecessary, as objective evidence showed the alleged accident could never have occurred.

The applicant failed to provide submissions for the expense hearing.

The arbitrator awarded the insurer its expenses, assessing legal fees at $6,063.34 and disbursements at $5,570.01, after reducing the hours claimed by one of the insurer's counsel to reflect a reasonable global assessment.

The applicant was injured in a head-on motor vehicle collision and sought ongoing income replacement benefits after the insurer terminated them.

The insurer argued that the applicant's inability to work was due to her significant pre-accident medical history, including a prior accident and depression.

The arbitrator found the applicant credible and preferred the medical evidence demonstrating that the accident caused a disabling chronic pain syndrome.

The arbitrator concluded that the applicant met both the 104-week and post-104-week disability tests under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule, entitling her to ongoing income replacement benefits and interest, and dismissing the insurer's claim for repayment.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits, claiming she was injured as a passenger in a rear-end motor vehicle collision.

The insurer denied the claim on the basis that the applicant's involvement in the accident was not credible.

Relying on expert accident reconstruction evidence that demonstrated the damage to the vehicles was entirely inconsistent with the reported collision, the arbitrator found the applicant's version of events lacked credibility.

The arbitrator concluded the applicant failed to prove she was involved in an 'accident' under section 2(1) of the Schedule and dismissed the arbitration.