Judy Beckett

The insurer brought a motion for the production of a Crown Brief and police records relating to drug trafficking charges against the applicant, arguing the records were relevant to the applicant's entitlement to income replacement benefits.

The applicant's counsel did not oppose the motion and subsequently sought to be removed from the record due to a breakdown in the solicitor-client relationship.

The arbitrator granted the unopposed production motion and ordered the applicant's counsel removed from the record.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident while being transported to work.

She applied for statutory accident benefits (SABs) from the insurer of the vehicle.

The insurer argued she was entitled to workers' compensation benefits and therefore precluded from receiving SABs under s. 59(1) of the Schedule.

The Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal (WSIAT) previously determined that the applicant was in the course of her employment at the time of the accident and was entitled to workers' compensation benefits.

At a preliminary issue hearing before FSCO, the arbitrator held that FSCO has no jurisdiction to go behind WSIAT's decision.

Because WSIAT determined the applicant is entitled to workers' compensation benefits, the insurer is not required to pay SABs.

The respondent broke her elbow when she fell while running to check on friends whose vehicle had been forced off the road.

The insurer appealed an arbitration decision finding that this constituted an 'accident' under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The Director of Arbitrations dismissed the appeal, upholding the arbitrator's finding that the use or operation of the automobiles was the direct cause of the respondent leaving her vehicle and falling, which was a normal part of operating an automobile on the highway.

The applicant was involved in a motor vehicle accident when a truck collided with the trailer she was towing.

After pulling over, she ran towards the other vehicles to check on her friends and fell, injuring her arm.

The insurer denied statutory accident benefits, arguing her injuries were not directly caused by the use or operation of an automobile.

The arbitrator found that the applicant was injured in an 'accident' within the meaning of section 2(1) of the Schedule, as her actions in running between vehicles at the scene were a normal and foreseeable risk of motoring, and the use of the vehicles was a direct cause of her injuries.