Andrew Grayson

The respondent insurer requested a reconsideration of a case conference decision that denied its requests for a stay of proceedings and a preliminary issue hearing.

The insurer argued that proceeding with the Tribunal application while a related Superior Court action was pending would result in a duplicity of proceedings and violate procedural fairness.

The Vice-Chair dismissed the request, finding that the original adjudicator properly balanced the potential prejudice to the applicant, who was out of work and not receiving income replacement benefits, against the insurer's concerns about efficiency and costs.

The Tribunal concluded there was no breach of natural justice, procedural fairness, or significant error of law or fact.

The plaintiff brought an action for damages arising from a rear-end motor vehicle collision where he struck the defendants' vehicle from behind.

The defendants and the plaintiff's insurer brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the action.

The court found that the physical evidence and the consistent testimony of the defendants established that the defendants were stopped at a red light when struck.

The plaintiff's evidence was inconsistent and evolved over time.

Applying the test for summary judgment, the court concluded there was no genuine issue requiring a trial, found the plaintiff entirely at fault, and dismissed the action.

The Applicant sought to withdraw his Application for Arbitration for accident benefits after failing to comply with undertakings and orders to produce financial documents.

The Insurer opposed a withdrawal without costs and sought its expenses.

The Arbitrator granted the withdrawal pursuant to Rule 70.3 of the Dispute Resolution Practice Code and ordered the Applicant to pay $2,000 in expenses to the Insurer, noting the Applicant's conduct prolonged the proceeding but acknowledging the withdrawal was requested prior to the hearing.

The applicants sought judicial review of a decision by a Director's Delegate of the Financial Services Commission of Ontario, which upheld an arbitrator's denial of statutory accident benefits.

The applicants argued breaches of procedural fairness, incorrect application of the burden of proof, improper judicial notice, and failure to accept uncontradicted medical evidence.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Delegate's decision reasonable in all respects.

The court affirmed that the burden of proof rests on the insured to establish entitlement to benefits and does not shift to the insurer.

The appellants appealed an arbitrator's decision denying them statutory accident benefits.

The appeals were dismissed.

The respondent insurer subsequently sought its legal expenses for the appeals.

The Director's Delegate found that the appeals lacked merit and raised numerous unfounded issues, justifying an award of expenses to the respondent.

The requested quantum was reduced due to excessive written submissions, resulting in a total costs award of $6,570.31, split equally between the two appellants.

The appellant, CAA Insurance Company (Ontario), appealed an order of the Superior Court of Justice.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal for the reasons given by the motion judge.

Costs were awarded to the respondent in the amount of $12,000.

The Appellants appealed an arbitrator's decision dismissing their claims for income replacement benefits and a special award following a motor vehicle accident.

The Appellants argued that the arbitrator erred in law by failing to apply the correct standard of proof, shifting the onus of proof, making palpable and overriding errors in reviewing evidence, and relying on hearsay evidence.

The Director's Delegate dismissed the appeals, finding that the arbitrator applied the correct standard of proof, the onus remained on the Appellants to prove entitlement, and the arbitrator's credibility findings were supported by the evidence.

The Delegate also found no breach of procedural fairness, apprehension of bias, or error in admitting hearsay evidence or hearing the matters together.

Following the dismissal of the applicants' claims for statutory accident benefits, the insurer sought $33,500 in expenses.

The arbitrator found that while the insurer was completely successful in defending the claims, it had spent excessive time pursuing an unproven conspiracy theory regarding a fraud ring.

The arbitrator reduced the allowable preparation and hearing time, disallowing expenses for the days devoted entirely to the conspiracy theory.

The applicants were ordered to pay a total of $12,013.36 in expenses, apportioned between them based on their respective involvement in the hearing.

The appellants appealed an arbitrator's decision dismissing their claims for income replacement benefits and a special award.

They brought a motion to stay the arbitrator's orders pending the appeal and requested that their appeals be combined.

The Director's Delegate combined the appeals as they arose from the same accident and involved the same parties and counsel.

However, the motion for a stay was dismissed because the arbitrator had not ordered the payment of any monies, meaning there was currently nothing to stay.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits, specifically an income replacement benefit, following an alleged motor vehicle accident.

The insurer denied the claim, alleging that the applicant was part of a fraudulent ring and had misrepresented her pre-accident employment at a hair salon.

The arbitrator found that while the insurer did not conclusively prove the applicant's participation in a fraudulent ring, the applicant's evidence regarding her employment and post-accident disability was riddled with inconsistencies, gaps, and admitted untruths.

Due to profound credibility issues and a lack of credible medical evidence supporting a substantial inability to perform her pre-accident employment tasks, the application for an income replacement benefit and a special award was dismissed.

The Applicant claimed statutory accident benefits, including income replacement benefits, following an alleged motor vehicle accident.

The Insurer denied the claims, alleging the Applicant was part of a ring to defraud insurers and that her employment was fabricated.

The Arbitrator found insufficient evidence to prove the Applicant was a knowing participant in a fraud ring, but dismissed her claim for income replacement benefits due to significant contradictions in her evidence regarding her pre-accident employment and a lack of credible evidence demonstrating an inability to perform the essential tasks of her employment.

The claim for a special award was also dismissed.

The applicant applied for arbitration at the Financial Services Commission of Ontario following a motor vehicle accident and a dispute over statutory accident benefits.

At the outset of the hearing, the applicant advised that he did not wish to proceed.

The arbitrator dismissed the application on consent, with each party bearing their own expenses.

The plaintiff contractor brought a motion for summary judgment to enforce a consultant's certificate for payment after a fire destroyed a construction project.

The motion judge denied summary judgment but proceeded to make determinations of law on other legal issues, ordering the parties to appoint a new consultant to determine the amount owing.

The defendants appealed, and the plaintiff cross-appealed.

The Court of Appeal set aside the motion judge's order, finding that the motion judge erred by treating the summary judgment motion as a trial on the record and determining issues that should have been sent to trial.

The Court ordered all issues to be tried.