Joseph Faust

The defendant Western Assurance Company brought a motion to amend a previously issued consent judgment that approved an infant settlement and dismissed the action against another defendant.

Western Assurance sought to amend the judgment to dismiss the entire action without costs, relying on a prior unapproved release.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the prior judgment was fully executed and could not be amended to include a non-party to that settlement.

The court directed that a separate motion under Rule 7.08 is required to approve the settlement and dismiss the action against Western Assurance.

The respondents requested an order to defer the human rights application pending the conclusion of a related criminal proceeding involving one of the personal respondents.

The applicant opposed the deferral, arguing the issues and available remedies were different and that deferral would cause unnecessary delay.

The Tribunal granted the deferral to avoid adjudicative duplication and the possibility of inconsistent findings of fact, noting that the criminal proceeding involved the same incident and that the personal respondent's rights in the criminal matter must be considered.

The Registrar issued a Notice of Proposed Order (NOPO) to refuse the Applicant's registration as a gaming assistant.

The Applicant had a history of severe gambling addiction, accumulated significant debt leading to bankruptcy, and was the subject of an ongoing fraud investigation.

He also failed to disclose employment history, debts, and traffic convictions on his application.

Despite evidence of recent employment and family support, the Board found that the Applicant's failure to fully disclose information and the lack of professional assessment regarding his gambling addiction raised serious concerns about his honesty, integrity, and ability to work in a casino environment.

The Board confirmed the Registrar's NOPO refusing the registration.

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

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

The insurer raised a preliminary issue that the application was filed outside the two-year limitation period under section 51(1) of the Schedule.

The applicant conceded the issue at the hearing.

The arbitrator found the applicant was precluded from proceeding and awarded $500 in expenses to the insurer.

The Registrar of the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario issued a Notice of Proposal to suspend the liquor licence of Centrinium Food & Beverage Service Inc., operating as The James Joyce Irish Pub.

The parties proceeded by way of an Agreed Statement of Facts and Joint Submission on Disposition, admitting that a drunken patron was permitted on the premises contrary to subsection 45(1) of Ontario Regulation 719/90.

The Board accepted the joint submission and ordered a four-day suspension of the liquor licence.

The insurer requested a hearing to determine its entitlement to expenses following an arbitration proceeding where the applicant successfully proved an accident occurred but failed to establish entitlement to the claimed statutory accident benefits.

The arbitrator applied the criteria under Regulation 664 and found that, given the mixed success of the parties and the inapplicability of other criteria, the most appropriate result was for each party to bear its own expenses.

The appellant appealed an arbitration order denying his claim for ongoing income replacement benefits and ordering him to repay $51,761.86 to the insurer.

The arbitrator found that the appellant had misrepresented his employment status and pre-accident income, and that he was actually self-employed and earning more post-accident than pre-accident.

The Director's Delegate dismissed the appeal, finding that the arbitrator's conclusions were overwhelmingly supported by the evidence and that the insurer had met its burden to prove the overpayment resulted from the appellant's misrepresentations.

The applicant sought arbitration for increased income replacement benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The insurer claimed repayment of benefits paid.

The applicant failed to attend the pre-hearing and the hearing, and his counsel had lost contact with him.

The arbitrator dismissed the applicant's claim due to abandonment and dismissed the insurer's claim for repayment due to lack of evidence.

The insurer was awarded expenses of $1,157.35.

The applicant sought income replacement benefits and the cost of a replacement penile prosthesis following a motor vehicle accident.

The insurer terminated income benefits after medical assessments concluded the applicant was capable of returning to work as a limousine driver.

The arbitrator dismissed the claim for income benefits, finding the applicant's evidence of ongoing disability lacked objective medical support and his credibility was undermined by a failure to disclose pre-accident medical issues.

The claim for a replacement prosthesis was also dismissed, as the evidence indicated the device was malfunctioning prior to the accident.

The applicant was ordered to repay a $3,000 advance provided by the insurer for the prosthesis.

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

The Insurer refused to pay weekly income benefits.

The Applicant filed for arbitration more than two years after the Insurer's clear refusal to pay.

The arbitrator found that the Insurer's subsequent settlement offers during mediation did not mislead the Applicant or change its position on the refusal.

The application for arbitration was dismissed as being filed out of time, though the Applicant was awarded expenses of the arbitration.

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

He signed an agreement and received a $7,200 lump sum from the insurer.

He later claimed the insurer misrepresented the document as a receipt and that he did not understand it due to limited English skills.

The arbitrator found the applicant's wife understood English, translated the negotiations, and that the applicant knowingly entered into a full and final settlement.

The claim for further weekly benefits was dismissed, though the applicant was awarded arbitration expenses.