Jeremy R. Solomon

The appellant suffered a fractured ankle after slipping on an icy municipal sidewalk.

He failed to give the required 10-day notice to the municipality under the Municipal Act, 2001, only providing notice months later after consulting a lawyer.

The trial judge dismissed the action, finding no reasonable excuse for the late notice and no gross negligence by the municipality.

The Court of Appeal reversed, holding that the appellant's severe injury, medication, and resulting depression constituted a reasonable excuse for the delay.

Furthermore, the municipality's failure to salt the sidewalks for nearly 34 hours after becoming aware of dangerous conditions amounted to gross negligence.

Liberty Mutual appealed an arbitration order requiring it to pay a special award under s. 282(10) of the Insurance Act for unreasonably withholding or delaying the payment of statutory accident benefits.

The Arbitrator had ordered a special award expressed as a percentage of the benefits owing.

On appeal, the Director of Arbitrations held that the percentage approach was inappropriate and that special awards must be expressed as a specific lump sum amount.

The Director also found the order was too vague to be enforceable.

Liberty Mutual's argument that the use of full-time government employees as arbitrators raised a reasonable apprehension of institutional bias was dismissed.

The appeal was allowed in part, the special award paragraph was rescinded, and the Director remained seized to determine the appropriate lump sum amount.

The Ministry of Finance, acting as an intervenor, brought a motion to introduce new evidence in the form of an affidavit from a former Director of Arbitrations.

The underlying appeal involved a challenge by the insurer to the dispute resolution system based on alleged institutional bias.

The insurer and another intervenor objected to portions of the affidavit referring to historical reports and special award statistics.

The Director of Arbitrations allowed the motion, finding the historical context relevant to the institutional bias issue and noting that the insurer had the opportunity to cross-examine the affiant.

The affidavit was admitted in its entirety.

An individual applied for intervenor status in an appeal concerning statutory accident benefits and allegations of institutional bias.

The Director of Arbitrations denied the application, finding that the applicant did not represent the interests of any recognized group and his participation would likely complicate the proceedings by raising substantially different issues and arguments.

The existing parties and intervenors were deemed sufficient to address the issues.

The insurer appealed an arbitration order that included a special award for unreasonably withholding benefits.

On appeal, the insurer brought a motion to admit new and extrinsic evidence.

The insurer sought to introduce evidence of institutional bias within the dispute resolution system, arguing that the use of full-time arbitrators created a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The Director of Arbitrations allowed this evidence to be admitted as extrinsic evidence, finding that the insurer had not waived its right to raise the issue.

However, the Director refused to admit new evidence regarding the insurer's belief about the insured's knowledge of available benefits, as this evidence could have been adduced at the original hearing.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and applied for statutory accident benefits, specifically income replacement benefits.

The applicant and her husband were self-employed, operating a retail electronics store.

The applicant claimed she was entitled to an income replacement benefit based on the cost of hiring replacement labour.

The arbitrator found that the applicant suffered a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of her employment due to the accident.

However, because the business operated at a loss prior to the accident and there was no evidence that the business incurred additional losses as a result of the accident, the amount of the income replacement benefit was calculated to be zero.

The application for arbitration was dismissed, and the claim for a special award was denied.

The applicants were injured in a motor vehicle accident and applied for statutory accident benefits from State Farm.

State Farm denied the claims on the basis that the policy had been cancelled prior to the accident.

The applicants initially argued that State Farm was required to pay benefits pending a priority dispute with another insurer under Regulation 283/95.

At the hearing, the applicants conceded that the policy had been cancelled and consented to an order dismissing their claims against State Farm, intending to pursue the other insurer instead.

The arbitrator dismissed the claims on consent without expenses.

The applicant was struck by a motor vehicle as a pedestrian and claimed income replacement benefits, alleging he was self-employed in construction prior to the accident.

The insurer terminated benefits, and the applicant applied for arbitration.

The arbitrator found the applicant's evidence of self-employment unreliable, noting inconsistencies in documentary evidence and contradictory statements made to the Workers' Compensation Board claiming total disability during the same period.

The claim for income replacement benefits was dismissed as the applicant failed to prove he was self-employed in the 156 weeks prior to the accident.

The appellant, Algoma Mutual Insurance Co., appealed a decision involving the respondent.

On consent of the parties, the Appeals Delegate ordered that the appeal be dismissed.

The parties agreed that the order is final and not subject to further appeal, variation, revocation, or judicial review.

The applicant was injured in a rear-end motor vehicle accident and sought ongoing income replacement benefits, which the insurer terminated.

The arbitrator found that the applicant was substantially unable to perform the essential tasks of his employment due to accident-related low back pain, which was compounded by a pre-existing knee condition and psychological factors.

The arbitrator also held that the insurer failed to comply with the mandatory termination notice procedures under section 64 of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule, depriving the applicant of the opportunity to request a DAC assessment.

As a result of the insurer's non-compliance and unreasonable withholding of benefits, the applicant was awarded ongoing income replacement benefits and a $5,000 special award.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident when struck as a pedestrian.

She applied for statutory accident benefits, including caregiver benefits, housekeeping expenses, and various medical and rehabilitation expenses.

The insurer terminated weekly income replacement benefits and denied several medical expenses.

The arbitrator found that the applicant had significant pre-existing medical conditions and exaggerated her symptoms, concluding she was capable of performing her pre-accident activities by October 1996.

Claims for ongoing caregiver and housekeeping benefits beyond that date were dismissed.

However, the arbitrator allowed claims for indexation, limited housekeeping expenses prior to October 1996, and certain psychological, massage, and acupuncture treatments deemed reasonable and necessary.

The claim for a special award was dismissed.