Mark Baker

The moving party father applied to vary child support and arrears originally ordered in 2016 for the parties' three children.

The parties agreed to terminate support for the oldest child as of June 30, 2023, because she had ceased living with the mother.

The court reviewed the father's proven annual income from 2016 to 2024 to recalculate his support obligations under the Child Support Guidelines.

Ultimately, the court adjusted the child support amounts year-by-year based on his proven income and ordered ongoing support of $212 per month for the two remaining eligible children.

The appellant insurer appealed a License Appeal Tribunal decision reinstating the respondent's Income Replacement Benefits.

The benefits had been suspended after the respondent failed to provide requested medical records.

The Tribunal found the respondent had a 'reasonable explanation' for the delay under s. 33(8)(b) of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Adjudicator applied the correct legal test for 'reasonable explanation' by considering both objective and subjective factors, and provided adequate reasons for the decision.

The respondent insurer requested a reconsideration of a decision finding the applicant entitled to income replacement benefits during a period of suspension.

The insurer argued the Tribunal erred in law by misinterpreting 'reasonable explanation' under s. 33(8)(b) of the Schedule, as the applicant's explanation was only offered at the hearing.

The Adjudicator dismissed the request, finding no error of law, as the Schedule does not impose a time limitation for providing a reasonable explanation and the Tribunal had properly weighed the evidence in finding the explanation credible.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and received income replacement benefits (IRBs) until the respondent suspended them for failure to provide requested information and participate in psychological treatment.

The applicant sought retroactive payment of the suspended IRBs.

The Tribunal found that the applicant provided a reasonable explanation for failing to provide the requested documents and that she had participated in treatment reasonably provided by her family physician's practice.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to pay the retroactive IRBs with interest.

The College alleged that the Member committed professional misconduct by practicing hirudotherapy (leech therapy), which involves performing an unauthorized controlled act, breaching the Food and Drugs Act, and contravening standards of practice.

The Member was also alleged to have used unauthorized titles (including 'Dr.') and permitted testimonials on her website.

The Member admitted several allegations but argued that others should be dismissed based on the rule against multiple convictions.

The Discipline Committee found the Member guilty of all allegations, concluding that the rule against multiple convictions did not apply because each allegation contained distinct legal and factual elements.

A penalty hearing was ordered to be convened.

The applicant sought a determination that she sustained a catastrophic impairment as a result of a 1999 motor vehicle accident.

She claimed the accident caused a lumbar disc rupture that led to chronic pain and significant impairment.

The arbitrator found the applicant's testimony unreliable due to numerous inconsistencies with contemporaneous medical records, which showed no complaints of low back pain until over a year after the accident and referenced a possible second accident in 2001.

The arbitrator concluded the applicant failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that the 1999 accident caused her impairments or that she met the 55% whole person impairment threshold, dismissing the application.

The plaintiff brought a motion for leave to appeal a costs order made by the trial scheduling judge, who had ordered the plaintiff to pay costs thrown away as a term of granting a further adjournment of the trial.

The plaintiff also sought an adjournment of this motion to obtain transcripts.

The Divisional Court denied the adjournment of the motion and dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding no error in the scheduling judge's exercise of discretion to award costs as a term of adjournment, particularly given the history of the proceeding and a prior unpaid costs order.

The applicant was injured in two motor vehicle accidents in 1995 and sought ongoing income replacement benefits (IRBs) and rehabilitation benefits from the insurer.

The arbitrator found that the applicant had a legitimate contract of employment as a truck driver trainee prior to the second accident and was substantially unable to perform the essential tasks of that employment due to injuries sustained in the accident, specifically heterotopic bone formation affecting his ability to sit for prolonged periods.

The applicant was awarded IRBs based on the truck driving contract, as well as funding for a vocational assessment at Goodwill Industries and case management services.

The applicant's claim for a higher IRB rate based on his pre-accident work as a taxi driver was dismissed due to a lack of reliable income evidence.

The applicant was largely unsuccessful in her claim for statutory accident benefits, being awarded only a small amount for transportation expenses.

Both parties sought their expenses for the arbitration proceeding.

The arbitrator held that the new expense regulation did not restrict the discretion to award expenses to an unsuccessful applicant, as the system is designed to facilitate access to dispute resolution.

Finding that the applicant had a legitimate claim and did not unreasonably prolong the proceedings, the arbitrator awarded the applicant her expenses and denied the insurer's claim for expenses, noting that the insurer's offer to settle was a full and final offer rather than one limited to the issues in arbitration.

The applicant sought interim expenses pending the completion of an arbitration for statutory accident benefits.

The hearing was delayed for six months due to the insurer's counsel's schedule.

The arbitrator applied the Bernicky criteria, noting the applicant's financial inability to carry the expenses of the arbitration and the bona fide issues raised.

The arbitrator ordered the insurer to pay $3,100.50 in interim expenses for medical reports and records, subject to a final order on expenses at the conclusion of the hearing.

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

The insurer terminated benefits, and the applicant commenced arbitration.

Subsequently, the applicant was deported to Bulgaria and failed to attend scheduled insurer's medical examinations.

The insurer brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the arbitration for failure to diligently pursue the claim and for an award of its assessment fee under s. 282(11.2) of the Insurance Act.

The arbitrator declined to dismiss the arbitration, noting the applicant's stated willingness to attend an examination upon return to Canada or in Bulgaria, and ordered a resumption of the pre-hearing to monitor the applicant's efforts to return.

The arbitrator also denied the insurer's request for the assessment fee, finding the arbitration was not frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process when commenced.

The applicant was injured in a rear-end motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits, including non-earner, attendant care, and housekeeping benefits.

The arbitrator dismissed the claims for non-earner, attendant care, and housekeeping benefits, finding that the applicant did not suffer a complete inability to carry on a normal life, as evidenced by video surveillance and her own statements.

The arbitrator also found no evidence that the applicant incurred expenses for care provided by her daughter.

The applicant was awarded $15.53 for transportation expenses to medical appointments.

The applicant sought her expenses for an arbitration hearing and the subsequent hearing on expenses, despite being unsuccessful in her claim for weekly statutory accident benefits.

The insurer argued that its offer to settle and the applicant's conduct should preclude an award of expenses.

The arbitrator found that the applicant's claim was not unreasonable and that her conduct did not disqualify her from entitlement to expenses.

The arbitrator emphasized the importance of accessibility to the dispute resolution system and awarded the applicant her expenses.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following an alleged motor vehicle accident.

The insurer denied the claim, arguing the accident did not occur as described and the applicant suffered no injuries.

The arbitrator found that while the arbitration application was not time-barred, the applicant had no reasonable excuse for filing her benefits application late.

Furthermore, based on expert engineering evidence, inconsistencies in witness statements, and the applicant's lack of credibility, the arbitrator concluded the applicant did not sustain injuries in the alleged accident and was pursuing a fraudulent claim.

The application for benefits was dismissed.

The applicant was injured in two motor vehicle accidents in 1993 and received statutory accident benefits until the insurer terminated them in January 1997.

The applicant sought ongoing weekly non-earner benefits, arguing that chronic pain and psychological factors continuously prevented her from engaging in substantially all of her pre-accident activities.

The arbitrator reviewed medical evidence from various experts, noting that while the applicant suffered from chronic pain and depression, her physical injuries had healed and she maintained normal muscle bulk, indicating a higher level of activity than she perceived.

The arbitrator concluded that the applicant did not meet the stringent post-156 week test under subsection 13(8)(b) of the Schedule, as her impairment did not continuously prevent her from engaging in substantially all of her former activities.

The application for weekly benefits was dismissed.

The appellant was injured in a motor vehicle accident in the course of his employment.

He initially received statutory accident benefits, then elected to receive workers' compensation benefits, and later re-elected to pursue a tort action and re-applied for accident benefits.

The arbitrator held that the appellant did not meet the conditions for receipt of statutory accident benefits under section 21 of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule because he had already received workers' compensation benefits.

The Director's Delegate dismissed the appeal, confirming that the appellant was excluded from receiving further accident benefits.

The Delegate also rejected the appellant's argument that a binding settlement had been reached, finding that the insurer's settlement offer expired when the arbitrator's decision was issued.

The appellant insurer appealed an arbitration decision finding that future economic loss (FEL) benefits received by the respondent under the Workers' Compensation Act were not deductible from his income replacement benefits under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule (SABS).

The Director's Delegate dismissed the appeal, upholding the arbitrator's finding that FEL benefits do not fall within the definition of 'temporary disability benefits' under the SABS and are therefore not deductible.

The Applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and initially received weekly income benefits from his motor vehicle insurer.

He subsequently elected to receive workers' compensation benefits, and the insurer was reimbursed.

After his workers' compensation benefits ceased, he reapplied for weekly income benefits from the insurer.

The arbitrator held that the Applicant was not entitled to re-elect and receive further interim benefits under section 21 of the Schedule, as he had already received workers' compensation payments and could no longer make a meaningful assignment of benefits to the insurer.