Jonathan B. Schrieder

The applicant sought non-earner benefits (NEBs) following a motor vehicle accident.

The arbitrator found that the applicant did not qualify for an income replacement benefit as he was not employed at the time of the accident.

Applying the test for NEBs, the arbitrator concluded that the applicant did not suffer a complete inability to carry on a normal life, as he remained independent in self-care and was not completely unable to engage in housekeeping and home maintenance.

The application for NEBs, a special award, and interest was dismissed.

The applicant claimed lost educational expenses following a motor vehicle accident.

After her counsel was removed from the record, the applicant failed to attend the scheduled arbitration hearing.

As she provided no evidence to prove entitlement to the claimed benefits, the arbitrator dismissed the application and ordered the applicant to pay $750 in arbitration expenses to the insurer.

In an arbitration for statutory accident benefits, the insurer brought a motion seeking production of photographs and videos posted to the applicant's restricted Facebook account.

The insurer argued the images were relevant to the applicant's claim for income replacement and housekeeping benefits.

The arbitrator dismissed the motion, finding that the insurer failed to establish a reasonable relationship between the images and the issues to be arbitrated.

The arbitrator held that the potential relevance of social media images was too remote when weighed against the procedural burden, sensitivity, and practicality of producing them in an administrative tribunal context.

The applicant claimed lost educational expenses under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule following a motor vehicle accident.

The applicant failed to attend the arbitration hearing, and the arbitrator initially proceeded and closed the hearing after refusing an adjournment.

However, upon realizing that the Commission had failed to provide the applicant with proper advance written notice of the hearing date, the arbitrator found that deciding the claim would violate due process.

The arbitrator ordered the hearing re-opened under Rule 43 of the Dispute Resolution Practice Code.

Following a preliminary issue hearing where the arbitrator determined the applicant had entered into a binding full and final settlement of all accident benefit claims, the insurer sought its expenses for the hearing.

The arbitrator considered the criteria under the Expense Regulation, noting the insurer's complete success and the lack of novel issues raised by the applicant's mistake argument.

The arbitrator found the insurer was entitled to its reasonable expenses and ordered the applicant to pay $2,366.33.

The applicant was injured in a rear-end motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits for caregiver services, housekeeping expenses, and the costs of various medical assessments.

The arbitrator found that the applicant was not the primary caregiver for his nephew's children prior to the accident, and that the invoices submitted for both caregiver and housekeeping expenses were unreliable and failed to establish the amounts claimed.

The claims for caregiver and housekeeping benefits were dismissed.

The arbitrator awarded the costs of a functional abilities evaluation and a reduced amount for an in-home assessment, but denied funding for neurological and orthopaedic assessments as they were not reasonably required.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

After terminating his legal representation at a pre-hearing discussion, the applicant failed to attend the resumed pre-hearing and the subsequent arbitration hearing despite receiving proper notice.

The arbitrator proceeded in the applicant's absence pursuant to Rule 37.7 of the Dispute Resolution Practice Code.

As the applicant presented no evidence to establish his entitlement to benefits, his application was dismissed.

The applicant was ordered to pay the insurer's arbitration expenses fixed at $750.

The applicant sought a determination from the Financial Services Commission of Ontario that she sustained a catastrophic impairment in a motor vehicle accident.

However, she was concurrently advancing claims for statutory accident benefits in a Superior Court action.

The arbitrator declined to decide the sole issue of catastrophic impairment and stayed the arbitration application, finding that the issue was too closely intertwined with the entitlement issues before the court.

Proceeding with the arbitration would risk a multiplicity of proceedings and inconsistent findings.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and claimed caregiver and housekeeping benefits.

The insurer terminated these benefits, and the applicant sought arbitration.

The arbitrator found that the applicant was not the primary caregiver for her child at the time of the accident, as she worked 50 hours a week and her mother provided care.

Furthermore, the applicant failed to prove a substantial inability to engage in pre-accident caregiving or housekeeping activities, especially given evidence that she had returned to work and submitted claims for periods when her mother was out of the country.

The application for arbitration was dismissed.

Following a successful arbitration where the insured's claims for statutory accident benefits were dismissed, the insurer sought its arbitration expenses.

The arbitrator found that the insurer was entirely successful and that the proceeding did not raise novel issues.

Applying the general rule of thumb of a 2:1 ratio for preparation time to hearing time, the arbitrator awarded the insurer 30 hours of counsel's time.

The insurer's claim for disbursements was denied due to a lack of receipts.

The insured was ordered to pay the insurer $2,908.71 in arbitration expenses.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident while completing his apprenticeship as a plumber.

He applied for a Loss of Earning Capacity Benefit under the Bill 164 Schedule.

The insurer argued that his pre-accident earning capacity must be strictly based on his actual pre-accident earnings as an apprentice, relying on the deeming provision in section 29 of the Schedule.

The arbitrator held that the deeming provision creates a rebuttable presumption, allowing the applicant to introduce evidence of his potential earnings as a journeyman plumber to establish his pre-accident earning capacity.

The Applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits for housekeeping, attendant care, and medical expenses.

The Insurer denied the claims based on various medical and functional assessments, as well as surveillance evidence showing the Applicant performing physical tasks without apparent difficulty.

The Arbitrator found the Applicant's evidence regarding his pre- and post-accident housekeeping and attendant care needs to be unreliable and inconsistent.

The Arbitrator concluded that the Applicant failed to establish a substantial inability to perform his pre-accident housekeeping tasks, did not prove he incurred the claimed attendant care expenses, and failed to show that the additional medical treatment was reasonable and necessary.

The application for benefits was dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits for housekeeping and attendant care following a motor vehicle accident.

The applicant failed to attend the arbitration hearing and adduced no evidence in support of her application.

The arbitrator found that the applicant abandoned the application and failed to meet her onus of proof.

The application was dismissed, and the insurer was awarded $750 in expenses.

The applicant applied for statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

At the scheduled arbitration hearing, neither the applicant nor her representative appeared.

The insurer requested that the application be dismissed.

The arbitrator noted that the Commission had sent the Notice of Hearing to the applicant's old address, despite having updated her address in its system.

Finding that the applicant was not notified of the hearing through no fault of her own, the arbitrator declined to dismiss the application and ordered an adjournment to a date to be arranged.

The insurer applied to vary or revoke an arbitration order regarding the quantum of income replacement benefits, arguing the insured was self-employed rather than employed.

The arbitrator dismissed the application, finding that the insurer's challenge to the previous arbitrator's ruling on jurisdiction was effectively an appeal, not an error in the order.

Furthermore, the evidence regarding employment status was not 'unavailable' at the original hearing; rather, the insurer failed to act diligently to mediate the issue in a timely manner.

The insurer brought a motion to adjourn the arbitration hearing and compel the production of the applicant's pre-accident business records.

The applicant had previously agreed to produce the records but failed to do so, arguing they might be with his accountant and questioning their relevance.

The arbitrator found that the records were relevant to the issue of income replacement benefits and that the applicant was bound by his prior agreement to produce them.

The motion was granted, the hearing was adjourned, and the applicant was ordered to produce the records or confirm their non-existence, as well as pay $150 in costs to the insurer.

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

Following a denial by the insurer, the applicant sought interim income replacement benefits and funding for a work-hardening programme pending the final arbitration hearing.

The arbitrator conducted an extensive review of the jurisprudence regarding interim orders under section 279(4.1) of the Insurance Act, rejecting the strict application of injunction tests such as 'irreparable harm' and 'prima facie case.' Instead, the arbitrator applied a holistic approach focused on the consumer protection mandate of the legislation.

Finding that the applicant's uncontradicted evidence and the medical reports supported the need for a transitional work programme, the arbitrator granted the interim benefits and ordered the insurer to fund the programme.

The request for an interim special award was deferred to the final hearing.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and claimed statutory accident benefits, including housekeeping and home maintenance benefits.

The insurer requested an in-home assessment under section 42 of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule, which the applicant refused to attend, arguing it was duplicative of her own assessment.

The arbitrator held that the applicant was properly notified of the examination and her failure to attend meant no benefits were payable for the period of non-compliance.

However, the arbitrator also found that the applicant's claim was not statute-barred, as the insurer's notice of refusal was not clear and unequivocal, meaning the two-year limitation period had not commenced.

The applicant applied for statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

After failing to attend a pre-hearing discussion and losing contact with his representative, the applicant also failed to attend the arbitration hearing.

The arbitrator proceeded in his absence.

As the applicant presented no evidence, he failed to meet his burden of proof, and all his claims for benefits were dismissed.

The applicant was ordered to pay the insurer's arbitration expenses fixed at $2,500.

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

The insurer terminated these benefits based on a Designated Assessment Centre (DAC) report.

However, the DAC was not authorized to conduct the required post-104 week disability assessment and applied the wrong test.

The arbitrator held that the insurer failed to comply with the statutory termination procedures under section 37 of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule, rendering the termination invalid.

The applicant was awarded ongoing income replacement benefits, housekeeping benefits, and a nominal special award of $1 for the insurer's unreasonable conduct.

Claims for attendant care benefits and hearing expenses were dismissed.