Antonietta Alfano

The applicant was involved in a motor vehicle accident and sought income replacement benefits (IRBs).

The respondent insurer denied the IRBs on August 5, 2014.

The applicant applied to the Licence Appeal Tribunal more than two years later, in November 2018.

The respondent raised a preliminary issue that the appeal was statute-barred under section 56 of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The applicant argued the initial denial was invalid and sought an extension of time under section 7 of the Licence Appeal Tribunal Act.

The Tribunal found the initial denial was clear and valid, and the applicant failed to meet the test for an extension of time.

The appeal was dismissed as statute-barred.

Two consolidated appeals concerning the standard of review applicable to insurance arbitral decisions resolving priority disputes under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule (SABS).

The first appeal involved a claimant listed as an excluded driver on his parents' policy who was injured as a passenger in another vehicle.

The second involved a claimant similarly listed as an excluded driver who was injured while driving an uninsured motorcycle.

The central issue was whether excluded drivers could qualify as "insured persons" under the SABS definition and thus trigger priority coverage under their parents' policies.

The Court of Appeal held that the appropriate standard of review for such arbitral decisions is reasonableness, not correctness, and that arbitrators' interpretations of the SABS and insurance policies within their specialized expertise warrant deference.

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

After her legal representative was removed from the record due to a breakdown in the solicitor-client relationship, the applicant failed to participate in the arbitration proceedings or attend the scheduled hearing.

The insurer brought a motion to dismiss the application.

The arbitrator found that the applicant's failure to participate constituted an abuse of process and dismissed the application, awarding $2,121.84 in expenses to the insurer.

Matthew B, an excluded driver under his parents' Dominion policy, was injured while driving an uninsured motorcycle.

Belairdirect, insurer of the other vehicle, sought to establish priority for accident benefits.

An arbitrator found Matthew B to be an "insured person" under Dominion's policy but felt bound by a prior Superior Court decision (Dominion v. State Farm) to rule in favour of Belairdirect.

Belairdirect appealed.

The Superior Court, applying a reasonableness standard of review to the arbitrator's underlying analysis, found the arbitrator's initial conclusion that Matthew B was an "insured person" under the Dominion policy to be reasonable.

The court overturned the arbitrator's final decision, holding that Dominion has first priority to respond to Matthew B's accident benefits claim.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and received income replacement benefits (IRBs).

She later returned to work part-time.

The parties disputed the correct method for calculating the IRB deduction for her post-accident part-time income.

The applicant argued for an 'Equitable Approach' where her income would be prorated based on the hours she was unable to work.

The insurer argued that under section 7(3) of the Schedule, 70% of her gross weekly employment income should be deducted from her IRB entitlement.

The arbitrator agreed with the insurer, finding that the law requires the deduction to be based on the weekly income earned, not on a percentage of working versus non-working hours.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident but subsequently failed to participate in the arbitration proceedings.

Her legal counsel was removed from the record after being unable to contact her, and the applicant's son later left a voicemail indicating she did not want to proceed with her claim.

The arbitrator dismissed the application without a hearing under Rule 68 of the Dispute Resolution Practice Code, finding the application was frivolous, vexatious, or commenced in bad faith due to the failure to participate.

The insurer was awarded $250 in expenses for having to prepare for and participate in the proceedings.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought accident benefits from the insurer.

After filing an Application for Arbitration, the applicant failed to participate in the proceedings or communicate with her counsel.

The applicant's counsel brought a motion to be removed from the record due to a breakdown in the solicitor-client relationship, and the insurer moved to dismiss the application with expenses.

The arbitrator granted the motion to remove counsel, dismissed the application as frivolous and vexatious due to the applicant's failure to participate, and awarded the insurer $250 in expenses.

The applicant failed to participate in the arbitration proceedings or respond to communications after her legal counsel was removed from the record.

The insurer brought a motion to dismiss the application for arbitration with expenses.

The arbitrator dismissed the application without a hearing under Rule 68 of the Dispute Resolution Practice Code, finding it was frivolous, vexatious, or commenced in bad faith due to the applicant's failure to participate.

The insurer was awarded $500 in throw-away costs.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits, including income replacement and housekeeping benefits, following a motor vehicle accident.

After her representative was removed from the record, the applicant failed to appear at the scheduled arbitration hearing.

The arbitrator proceeded in her absence and dismissed the application, finding that the applicant failed to meet her burden of proof.

The insurer was awarded $500 in expenses due to the applicant's failure to advance her claim.