3 total
Applicant found not to be a dependant of his parents; priority dispute resolved against State Farm.
The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident while a passenger in a vehicle insured by State Farm.
He applied for and received statutory accident benefits from Wellington, his father's insurer, claiming to be a dependant.
Wellington disputed the dependency and argued State Farm was the priority insurer.
The arbitrator analyzed the applicant's financial situation, including his receipt of welfare and student loans, and rejected the theoretical reports of both insurers' accounting experts.
The arbitrator concluded that the applicant was not principally financially dependent on his parents at the time of the accident.
Consequently, State Farm was found responsible for paying the applicant's benefits.
Applicant entitled to accident benefits as driver had implied consent to operate employer's tractor.
The Applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident while a passenger in a tractor driven by a co-worker.
The Insurer denied statutory accident benefits on the basis that the Applicant knew or ought to have known the vehicle was being driven without the owner's consent.
The arbitrator found that the employer had given the employees keys to the tractor without specific restrictions, implying authority to operate it.
Therefore, the driver had implied consent, and the Applicant was not precluded from receiving benefits under section 17(3)(b) of the Schedule.
Police officer's appeal of discreditable conduct conviction for using profanity dismissed.
The appellant police officer appealed a conviction for discreditable conduct arising from his use of profanity toward a civilian whose vehicle he had towed.
The officer argued that the charge was a nullity due to missing particulars, that the signing of the charge sheet was invalid, and that the hearing board erred in its credibility findings and application of the standard of proof.
The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the missing particulars did not prejudice the officer, the signing officer adequately considered the allegations, and there was sufficient evidence to support the conviction on a balance of probabilities.
