Douglas Bryce

The appellant's appeal of an arbitrator's order regarding income replacement benefits was previously dismissed.

The respondent insurer sought $4,611.35 for its expenses of the appeal.

The Director's Delegate found the respondent was entitled to its expenses based on its complete success, rejecting the appellant's argument that the unique history of the dispute warranted parties bearing their own expenses.

The Delegate found the claimed amount excessive and fixed the respondent's appeal expenses at $3,500 inclusive of disbursements and HST.

Following an arbitration where the applicant's claims for statutory accident benefits were dismissed, the insurer requested an expense hearing to determine the quantum of costs payable by the applicant.

The insurer claimed $12,714.78 in fees and disbursements.

The arbitrator considered the criteria under Rule 75.2 of the Dispute Resolution Practice Code, noting the insurer's 100% success and an unaccepted Rule 76 offer to settle.

Applying the principle of fairness and recognizing the consumer protection nature of the legislation, the arbitrator applied a 50% discount to the insurer's fees and disallowed certain disbursements.

The applicant was ordered to pay $5,634.95 in total expenses.

The appellant appealed an Arbitrator's decision denying him further income replacement benefits (IRBs) on the basis that his post-accident income from self-employment reduced his entitlement.

The appellant argued the Arbitrator erred in finding he was self-employed and in attributing 50% of the business's post-accident profit to him.

The Director's Delegate dismissed the appeal, finding no error of law.

The Arbitrator's findings of fact were supported by ample evidence, including the appellant's tax returns, and the Arbitrator correctly applied the accounting principle of consistency to calculate the post-accident income.

The Applicant sought additional post-104 Income Replacement Benefits (IRBs) following a motor vehicle accident.

The Insurer had deducted amounts from the IRBs based on the Applicant's self-employment income reported on his tax returns.

The Applicant argued that he was not employed as defined by the Schedule and that his tax returns were incorrect.

The Arbitrator found that the Applicant was self-employed during the period in dispute, as he continued to manage his rental properties and reported self-employment income on his tax returns.

The Arbitrator concluded that the Insurer correctly calculated the IRBs and dismissed the Applicant's claim for additional benefits and interest.

The applicant, a minority shareholder, sought standing to bring an application under section 127 of the Securities Act to delay a special meeting and require corrective disclosure in a management information circular regarding a related party transaction.

The respondent brought a motion to deny standing.

The Commission granted the motion and denied standing, finding that the application raised no novel issues, the alleged disclosure deficiencies had already been widely debated in the market, and intervening at a late stage would unduly interfere with the justified expectations of market participants.

The plaintiffs in two related actions arising from a motor vehicle accident sought to add a new defendant, the host of a wedding reception, after the presumptive two-year limitation period had expired.

The proposed defendant resisted the motion, arguing the plaintiffs knew or ought to have known of his potential liability earlier.

The court granted the motion to add the defendant, holding that the issue of discoverability should be determined on a proper evidentiary record at trial rather than at the pleadings stage, and noted the proposed defendant could plead the limitation period as an affirmative defence.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and received income replacement benefits until they were terminated by the insurer in September 2003.

The applicant returned to work shortly after but went off work again in March 2006, claiming disability due to the accident.

He sought to resume his income replacement benefits, which the insurer refused, arguing the claim was time-barred.

The arbitrator held that the two-year limitation period under section 281(5) of the Insurance Act was triggered by the clear and unequivocal refusal in September 2003.

Relying on the Court of Appeal's decision in Haldenby, the arbitrator found that the return to work provisions in the Schedule do not create a second limitation period.

The applicant's claim for further benefits was therefore precluded.

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

The insurer paid $180 per week, disputing the applicant's pre-accident income as an exotic dancer because she was paid in cash and lacked formal employment records.

The arbitrator found the applicant's testimony regarding her income and tips to be credible and corroborated by a co-worker.

The arbitrator concluded that the applicant earned sufficient pre-accident income to qualify for the maximum income replacement benefit of $400 per week and awarded her expenses.

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

A dispute arose regarding the calculation of her gross income for income replacement benefits.

The Applicant was both employed and self-employed in the four weeks preceding the accident.

The arbitrator held that under section 8(2) of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule, because the Applicant was self-employed at any time during the four weeks before the accident, she must designate either the 52 weeks before the accident or the last fiscal year of her business to calculate her gross income.

The Applicant was awarded her reasonable expenses of the arbitration.

The respondent was injured when he rode his bicycle into a pothole after being distracted by the sound of a car engine starting.

He claimed statutory accident benefits under an automobile insurance policy.

The arbitrator found that the starting of the car engine constituted the use or operation of an automobile and was the precipitating cause of the injury.

The insurer appealed.

The Director's Delegate dismissed the appeal, holding that the phrase 'causes, directly or indirectly' in the Schedule allows for a more remote causal link than proximate cause, and that the starting of the engine triggered the sequence of events leading to the fall.

The applicant was involved in a minor motor vehicle collision with another driver.

After both vehicles stopped, an altercation ensued, and the other driver struck the applicant in the head with a cellular telephone.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits.

The arbitrator applied the purpose and chain of causation tests, finding that the assault did not result from the ordinary and well-known activities to which automobiles are put, and the chain of causation was broken by new and independent acts.

The injuries were not caused by an 'accident' under the Schedule.