Karen Kwan Anderson

The applicant sought income replacement benefits, medical benefits for physiotherapy and massage therapy, and the cost of various assessments following a motor vehicle accident.

The arbitrator dismissed all claims, finding the applicant entirely lacking in credibility due to numerous contradictions regarding his pre-accident health, employment duties, living arrangements, and the accident itself.

Surveillance evidence and independent medical examinations demonstrated significant symptom magnification and inconsistent effort.

The arbitrator concluded the applicant did not suffer a substantial inability to perform his employment tasks and that the claimed medical treatments and assessments were not reasonable or necessary.

The appellant appealed an arbitration order finding that he had validly settled his claim for statutory accident benefits.

The appellant argued that under the Settlement Regulation, a settlement is not finalized until the insured confirms it after receiving the disclosure notice, and the two-day cooling-off period runs from that point.

The Director of Arbitrations rejected this 'three-step approach', holding that if the parties agree on all terms, the insurer fulfills its obligations by sending the required notice.

Unless the insured rescinds within two business days of receiving the notice, the settlement is binding.

The appeal was dismissed.

The insurer brought a motion for the production of medical and employment records from several non-parties.

The applicant did not object to the production and had previously attempted to obtain the records.

The arbitrator ordered the non-party doctors to produce their complete charts, finding that reasonable efforts had been made and the doctors had a reasonable opportunity to respond.

However, the arbitrator declined to order the non-party employer to produce employment records, as there was insufficient evidence that the employer had been properly served with the motion record and given an opportunity to respond.

Following an arbitration decision regarding statutory accident benefits, the applicant sought hearing expenses of $5,093.02.

The insurer argued each party should bear its own expenses.

The arbitrator considered the criteria under the Expense Regulation, noting mixed success on the issues and that the applicant's representative unnecessarily prolonged the hearing and took meritless legal positions.

However, the applicant recovered more than double the insurer's settlement offer.

The arbitrator awarded the applicant half her counsel fees and all disbursements, totalling $2,211.96.

The insurer brought a motion seeking an order sanctioning the applicant for her refusal to attend a proposed insurer's medical examination on the eve of the arbitration hearing.

The insurer argued that a late medical report from the applicant's family physician created exceptional circumstances justifying a last-minute examination.

The arbitrator dismissed the motion, finding that the insurer had ample notice of the issues and that scheduling an examination at this late date constituted tactical brinkmanship.

The applicant was permitted to proceed to arbitration, and the insurer was ordered to pay $250 in fixed costs.

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

The parties reached an oral settlement agreement, and the insurer forwarded the settlement documents and a release.

The applicant reconsidered and did not sign the release.

The insurer argued the claim was settled on a full and final basis.

The arbitrator found that the settlement was enforceable because the insurer complied with the Settlement Regulation by forwarding the disclosure and release, and the applicant failed to deliver a written notice of rescission within the two-day cooling-off period.

The applicant was precluded from proceeding to arbitration.