Karl Arvai

The applicant, who was involved in multiple motor vehicle accidents, brought a cross-application for an interim order compelling the insurer to pay past medical and rehabilitation expenses and ongoing treatment and medication costs pending a final arbitration hearing.

The arbitrator dismissed the request for past expenses, finding no urgency and deferring the complex claims to the imminent full hearing.

Regarding ongoing treatment, the arbitrator held that the proposed treatments had not been mediated as required by section 281(2) of the Insurance Act and directed the parties to mediation.

However, the arbitrator ordered the insurer to pay for the applicant's psychiatric and pain management medications pending the final order, as medication had been included in a prior mediation.

The insurer brought a motion for an order requiring the insured to attend several independent medical examinations, including an endocrinologist, a work capacity and functional abilities evaluation, a vocational assessment, and a psychological evaluation.

The arbitrator granted the requests for the endocrinologist, the physical examination by a medical doctor, and the psychological evaluation, finding them reasonable given the passage of time since previous assessments and the recent medical reports served by the insured.

The requests for a functional abilities evaluation and a vocational assessment were denied as unreasonable and too close to the scheduled arbitration hearing.

The appellants appealed an engineer's report under the Drainage Act, arguing that proposed improvements to the Hoy Drain were unnecessary and should be abandoned.

The Tribunal found that the existing drain, designed in 1962, no longer provided adequate drainage for the neighbouring property, which had experienced ongoing water ponding despite the installation of private tiles.

The Tribunal accepted the engineer's evidence that upgrading the outlet was a necessary first step to resolve the drainage issues.

The appeal was dismissed, and the appellants were ordered to pay $2,000 in costs because they failed to provide credible evidence to support their assertions and necessitated an unnecessary hearing.