Asma Desai

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a motion decision that denied his request to reinstate his application or set aside his Notice of Withdrawal.

The applicant argued the Vice-Chair erred in law by failing to apply the Tribunal's Rules of Practice and Procedure to the withdrawal.

The Tribunal found no significant error of law or violation of procedural fairness, noting that the withdrawal was unconditional and made with legal advice.

The request for reconsideration was denied.

Following an arbitration and a subsequent application for variation/revocation regarding statutory accident benefits, the arbitrator determined the issue of expenses.

The insurer was almost entirely successful in the arbitration and entirely successful in the variation/revocation application.

The arbitrator awarded the insurer its expenses, fixing the amount at $27,425.82 inclusive of fees, HST, and disbursements, after assessing the reasonableness of the claimed preparation time and expert witness fees.

The applicant's representative brought a motion to withdraw as counsel due to a complete breakdown in the solicitor-client relationship.

The applicant consented to the withdrawal.

The arbitrator granted the motion to withdraw, ordered the motion record sealed due to its sensitive and potentially prejudicial nature, and directed that a different arbitrator be selected to hear the case on the merits.

The insurer brought a motion to stay the arbitration until the insured attended a further set of multidisciplinary catastrophic impairment assessments.

The insured had previously attended insurer examinations and his own assessments, but the insurer requested new assessments due to the passage of time and differing conclusions.

The arbitrator found that the notice of examination provided by the insurer was deficient as it failed to include medical or other reasons as required by section 44(5) of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

Furthermore, considering the balance between the insured's right to privacy and the insurer's right to assess the claim, the arbitrator concluded that further in-person assessments were neither reasonable nor necessary.

The motion was dismissed and the arbitration was ordered to proceed as scheduled.

The applicant sought to vary or revoke a previous arbitration decision that denied her claim for catastrophic impairment and post-104 week benefits.

She argued that post-hearing hospitalizations for psychosis and depression constituted a material change in circumstances and new evidence.

The arbitrator dismissed the application, finding that the new evidence did not disturb the original findings that the applicant's presentation involved a significant degree of malingering or factitious disorder, and she failed to prove her impairments met the catastrophic threshold.

The defendants brought a motion for security for costs against the plaintiff, who resides in India.

The plaintiff argued that he was impecunious and had a meritorious claim arising from a motor vehicle accident.

The court found that the plaintiff failed to provide robust financial disclosure to prove impecuniosity.

Furthermore, the court held that the plaintiff did not demonstrate a good chance of success due to a serious limitation period defence, as the action was commenced over five years after the accident.

The motion was granted, and the plaintiff was ordered to post $15,000 in security for costs.

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

The insurer's assessors concluded he did not meet the threshold, and the applicant sought funding for rebuttal reports.

The insurer denied funding, arguing the new SABS eliminated this right and the applicant failed to meet the timelines under the old SABS.

The arbitrator found the applicant was not entitled to substantive interim benefits for the reports under either SABS.

However, applying the 'whole case approach,' the arbitrator awarded $10,500 as an interim expense to fund the rebuttal reports, citing the applicant's financial distress and the need for procedural fairness to answer the insurer's expert reports.