Kerrianne Pearl Knudsen

John Biro was injured in a 2007 motor vehicle accident and sought various statutory accident benefits from Unica Insurance Inc., including non-earner benefits, attendant care, and medical benefits for medical marijuana.

Unica denied the benefits, arguing that his ongoing impairments were due to his pre-existing ankylosing spondylitis rather than the accident.

The arbitrator found that the accident materially contributed to the aggravation of his pre-existing condition.

The arbitrator denied the non-earner benefit, finding Mr. Biro was able to manage a complex medical marijuana growing enterprise.

However, the arbitrator awarded attendant care benefits for 104 weeks, medical benefits for psychological treatment, and $30 per day for medical marijuana, along with a special award for Unica's unreasonable withholding of the marijuana and psychological treatment benefits.

The arbitrator concluded Mr. Biro did not meet the threshold for catastrophic impairment.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and applied for a determination of catastrophic impairment.

The insurer failed to respond within the required 10-day period under s. 45(3) of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The applicant argued that this failure should result in a deemed catastrophic impairment.

The arbitrator held that the Schedule does not contain a deeming provision for missing this timeline, unlike other sections.

The applicant was ordered to attend the insurer's s. 44 examinations to pursue the claim.

The appellants retained the respondent lawyer to represent them in a motor vehicle accident claim.

The respondent issued the statement of claim more than two years after the accident.

The appellants subsequently sued the respondent for professional negligence.

The respondent successfully moved for summary judgment on the basis that the professional negligence action was statute-barred.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal set aside the summary judgment, finding that under s. 5(1)(a)(iv) of the Limitations Act, 2002, the appellants did not discover their claim against the respondent until the defendants in the underlying motor vehicle action amended their statement of defence to plead a limitations defence.

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

After his representative was removed from the record due to a loss of communication, the applicant failed to attend a scheduled pre-hearing and a subsequent preliminary issue hearing.

The arbitrator found that the applicant had abandoned his claim and dismissed the application for arbitration pursuant to Rule 37.9 of the Dispute Resolution Practice Code.

The applicant was injured in a rear-end motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits, including income replacement benefits, housekeeping benefits, and the cost of a multidisciplinary assessment.

The insurer terminated income replacement and housekeeping benefits shortly after the accident.

The arbitrator found that the applicant suffered significant soft-tissue injuries that developed into chronic pain and fibromyalgia, rendering her substantially unable to perform her pre-accident physically demanding job as a product demonstrator, and completely unable to engage in alternative employment.

Income replacement benefits were reinstated.

However, the claim for housekeeping benefits was dismissed, as the evidence showed the applicant retained essential independence in her household tasks, albeit at a slower pace.

The arbitrator also approved the cost of the multidisciplinary assessment, finding it reasonable and necessary given the applicant's complex psycho-physical presentation, and awarded interest on overdue amounts.

The defendant lawyer moved for summary judgment dismissing a malpractice action brought by a former client arising from the settlement of motor vehicle accident litigation.

The plaintiff alleged breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, negligence, and unjust enrichment, claiming he did not consent to the settlement or signed documents under duress and incapacity.

The court held that the action was statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002 because the plaintiff knew or ought to have known of the alleged cause of action years before issuing the claim.

The plaintiff provided no evidence supporting allegations of forgery, coercion, or incapacity sufficient to suspend the limitation period.

Summary judgment was granted and the action dismissed.

The appellant insurer sought to withdraw its appeal of an arbitrator's preliminary decisions regarding third-party production and catastrophic impairment, following a relevant Court of Appeal decision.

The respondent insured consented to the withdrawal but sought legal expenses as a condition.

The Director's Delegate permitted the withdrawal and ordered the appellant to pay $6,250 in legal expenses to the respondent, finding that the respondent had been successful in resisting an earlier stay request and that the appellant's conduct warranted an award of costs.

Following a preliminary hearing where the applicant was found to be catastrophically impaired, the applicant sought arbitration expenses of $144,279.21.

The insurer disputed the amount, arguing the dockets were vague, excessive, and included non-compensable items.

The arbitrator agreed with the insurer's critique, noting the applicant's counsel unnecessarily lengthened the hearing by cross-examining the insurer's experts whose reports were already deficient, and provided superficial submissions.

Applying the principles of reasonableness and global assessment, the arbitrator fixed the applicant's expenses at $60,000 inclusive of taxes.

The applicant was catastrophically injured in a motorcycle accident and subsequently moved to Romania, where his family provides round-the-clock attendant care.

The insurer argued that the attendant care benefits should be paid at the Romanian minimum wage rate ($1.30/hour) rather than the Ontario minimum wage rate ($7.75/hour) specified in the Form 1, asserting that 'incurred' expenses means actual cost.

The arbitrator rejected the insurer's argument, holding that the Schedule mandates the use of the prescribed hourly rates in the Form 1 and that 'incurred' does not restrict the benefit to the actual cost when the reasonableness, necessity, and calculated amount are established.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and applied for statutory accident benefits, claiming he was catastrophically impaired due to mental and behavioural disorders.

The insurer disputed the claim.

Following a lengthy arbitration hearing, the arbitrator found the applicant and his treating professionals to be highly credible, detailing a severe deterioration in his mental health, including major depression and suicidal ideation.

The arbitrator rejected the insurer's expert evidence as biased and superficial.

Applying the AMA Guides, the arbitrator concluded the applicant suffered marked impairments in multiple domains of functioning and was therefore catastrophically impaired pursuant to clause 2(1.2)(g) of the Schedule.

The insurer brought a motion for a third party production order to obtain unredacted records from the Children's Aid Society regarding the applicant's children.

The motion was brought on the eve of the arbitration hearing without complying with the notice and service requirements of Rule 67 of the Dispute Resolution Practice Code.

The arbitrator dismissed the motion, finding it to be frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process, as the insurer failed to provide any valid basis or extraordinary circumstances for the late request.