Aida Davari

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

The matter proceeded to a written hearing.

The applicant's representative withdrew, and the applicant failed to respond to multiple Tribunal communications or file any written submissions.

The Tribunal proceeded with the hearing in the applicant's absence pursuant to section 7(2) of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act.

The application was dismissed as the applicant failed to meet the evidentiary burden to demonstrate entitlement to the claimed benefits.

The applicant, a minor, sought a $10,000 death benefit from the respondent insurer following the death of her father in a motor vehicle accident.

The applicant's mother held a policy with the respondent.

The Tribunal found that the deceased father was not an "insured person" under the mother's policy, as they were not spouses and he was not a dependent.

The application for a death benefit was dismissed.

The applicant sought a $10,000 death benefit under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule following the death of her father in a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied the benefit on the basis that the deceased was not an insured person under his father's policy.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove the deceased was principally dependent on his father or stepmother for financial support or care.

As the deceased was not a dependent, he was not an insured person under the policy, and the applicant was not entitled to the death benefit.

The applicant sought a $10,000 death benefit from the respondent insurer following the death of her father in a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied the claim on the basis that the deceased was not an "insured person" under the policy issued to the applicant's mother.

The Tribunal found that the deceased was not a named insured, a specified driver, a spouse of the named insured, or a dependent of the named insured.

As the applicant failed to prove the deceased was an insured person under the respondent's policy, the application for a death benefit was dismissed.

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

The respondent denied the benefits, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant claimed chronic pain and psychological impairments warranted removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal preferred the respondent's medical evidence, finding the applicant did not have chronic pain with a functional impairment or a psychological disorder.

The Tribunal concluded the injuries were predominantly minor and treatable within the MIG, dismissing the claims for chiropractic services, interest, and an award.

This appeal arose from a priority dispute between insurance companies concerning accident benefits coverage following a motor vehicle accident.

The appellant, Trafalgar Insurance Company, appealed an arbitration decision that found the injured party was not insured by Economical Insurance Company and not entitled to Statutory Accident Benefits from them.

The Superior Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the arbitrator's findings that the vehicle in question was not an 'owned automobile' under Economical's standard Ontario Garage Policy (OAP 4) because its use (leased to a rental company) was outside the scope of the insured's business and was specifically excluded by the policy.

The court also affirmed that section 233(2) of the Insurance Act did not apply as the issue was the vehicle's insured status, not a breach of contract or misrepresentation.

The applicant sought a reconsideration of a decision which found that his injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant argued that the Tribunal made errors of fact in weighing the evidence, specifically by not accepting the applicant's medical evidence when the respondent had not submitted controverting evidence.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the applicant failed to demonstrate any misapprehension of evidence regarding his physical injuries, pre-existing condition, chronic pain, or psychological injuries.

The Tribunal emphasized that the burden of proof rests with the applicant to establish entitlement to benefits beyond the MIG, and a reconsideration is not an opportunity to re-litigate the original hearing.

The applicant was injured in a rear-end motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits.

The respondent denied several treatment plans on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guidelines (MIG).

The applicant argued that chronic pain, psychological symptoms, and pre-existing chest pain excluded him from the MIG.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's physical injuries were predominantly minor (sprains and strains) and that the evidence of psychological impairment and chronic pain was unreliable.

Furthermore, there was no compelling evidence that the applicant's pre-existing chest pain prevented maximal recovery within the MIG limits.

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

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought medical and rehabilitation benefits.

The respondent insurer denied the benefits on the basis that the applicant's injuries were predominantly minor and subject to the $3,500 limit under the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant argued that her physical injuries, pre-existing conditions, and psychological impairments warranted removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's physical injuries were soft-tissue in nature and fell within the MIG.

The Tribunal also found insufficient evidence that any pre-existing conditions prevented maximal recovery or that the applicant suffered from a psychological impairment caused by the accident.

As the MIG limits were exhausted, the claims for treatment plans and assessments were dismissed.

The applicant sought to withdraw her application for arbitration of accident benefits three days before the scheduled hearing.

The insurer requested that the withdrawal be with prejudice and sought its expenses for the proceeding.

The arbitrator permitted the withdrawal without prejudice but awarded expenses to the insurer, finding that the insurer was entirely successful as the applicant did not proceed with her claims.

After reducing the insurer's claimed legal fees for excessive hours and duplication of effort, the arbitrator awarded the insurer $42,134.02 in total expenses.

The applicant sought a medical benefit of $4,124.88 for chiropractic services following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent insurer initially denied the benefit under the Minor Injury Guideline, but later conceded the applicant was removed from the guideline based on a psychological assessment.

The adjudicator found that the applicant failed to provide objective medical evidence to prove the chiropractic treatment was reasonable and necessary, noting that her own treating physicians recommended physiotherapy rather than chiropractic care.

The application was dismissed, and the applicant's request for costs based on the insurer's alleged bad faith was denied.

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

After the parties failed to resolve their disputes through mediation, the applicant applied for arbitration.

The applicant subsequently failed to appear at any pre-hearings and lost contact with his counsel.

Counsel brought a motion to be removed from the record, which was granted.

Due to the applicant's failure to pursue his application or appear at the hearing, the application for arbitration was dismissed.

The applicant was ordered to pay the insurer's expenses fixed at $2,000.

The applicant sought accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

After a settlement was reportedly reached at a pre-hearing discussion, the applicant failed to execute the settlement documents and ceased communicating with her counsel.

At the scheduled arbitration hearing, the applicant did not appear.

Her counsel was granted permission to withdraw from the record.

As no evidence was introduced to support the applicant's claims, the application was dismissed.

The applicant was ordered to pay $500 in expenses to the insurer for unduly prolonging the proceeding.