Michael Rubin

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in the denial of short-term disability benefits.

The respondent employer, Expertech, is a federally regulated telecommunications company.

The Tribunal found that Expertech is a federal undertaking and the subject matter of the application relates to its employee relations, placing it outside provincial jurisdiction.

The Tribunal also found that the third-party benefits manager, OSI, was providing advice related to federal employment and was therefore also outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

The application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The plaintiff's personal injury action was subject to a status hearing after a notice was issued by the court for delay.

The defendants sought to have the action dismissed.

The court applied the test from Khan v. Sun Life Assurance, finding that while the plaintiff's delay was not ideal, it was partially explained by her residence in Israel and a change in counsel.

The court also found no non-compensable prejudice to the defendants, as the delay was not unduly excessive and relevant evidence had been preserved.

The action was allowed to continue subject to a strict timetable, with no order as to costs.

Following a jury verdict finding that a motor vehicle accident did not cause injury to the plaintiff, and dismissal of the action on the statutory threshold for non‑pecuniary damages, the court determined the appropriate costs award.

The defendants sought substantial indemnity costs based on alleged misconduct and a withdrawn Rule 49 offer to settle.

The court held that substantial indemnity costs were not justified because the plaintiffs’ conduct was not reprehensible and the defendants’ offer had been withdrawn prior to trial, removing automatic Rule 49 consequences.

However, the defendants were the successful parties and were entitled to partial indemnity costs throughout, with the court fixing a lump sum award after considering proportionality, trial complexity, and counsel conduct that lengthened the proceeding.

Following an appeal where the respondent insurer was entirely successful, the respondent sought its legal expenses, including travel time for its counsel.

The Director's Delegate awarded the respondent its reasonable appeal expenses but disallowed the claim for counsel's travel time.

The Delegate found that travel time is not generally a professional legal service for which it is reasonable for the other party to bear the cost, absent compelling circumstances such as access to justice, which were not present here.

The insurer was previously awarded its expenses of the arbitration proceeding.

The parties could not agree on the amount.

The insurer claimed $8,748.50, including legal fees and disbursements.

The applicant objected to the disbursement for mileage and parking for out-of-town counsel.

The arbitrator allowed the legal fees and parking expenses but disallowed the mileage expenses, finding no reasonable justification for retaining out-of-town counsel.

The applicant was ordered to pay the insurer's expenses assessed at $8,184.54.

The appellant appealed an arbitrator's decision denying her claims for income replacement and housekeeping benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The arbitrator had found the appellant's evidence regarding her employment to be fabricated.

On appeal, the appellant argued that because the respondent insurer missed the statutory timeline to respond to her application by 15 days, she was automatically entitled to the benefits regardless of her actual eligibility.

The Director's Delegate rejected this argument, finding that the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule provides specific remedies for delayed payments, such as mandatory interest and potential special awards, but does not mandate automatic entitlement to benefits for an insurer's procedural delay.

The appeal was dismissed.

Following a decision denying the applicant's claims for statutory accident benefits, the arbitrator considered the issue of expenses.

The insurer was completely successful in the main proceeding.

The arbitrator found that the applicant's claim had no merit and was unnecessary, as she had fabricated the story of her employment, although her low intellect prevented her from recognizing that her story made no sense.

Applying the criteria under section 12(2) of Ontario Regulation 664, the arbitrator ordered the applicant to pay the insurer's expenses of the arbitration proceeding, with the amount to be agreed upon or assessed.

The applicant sought income replacement benefits and housekeeping expenses following a motor vehicle accident.

The insurer denied the claims, disputing that the applicant was employed at the time of the accident and questioning the need for housekeeping services.

The arbitrator found the applicant's evidence regarding her alleged employment at a restaurant to be implausible and fabricated, noting inconsistencies in her testimony and the lack of corroborating evidence.

The housekeeping claim was also dismissed due to inconsistent and unbelievable evidence.

Furthermore, the arbitrator held that the insurer's minor delays in responding to the application were procedural irregularities that did not prejudice the applicant, thereby dismissing the claim for a special award.

The appellant appealed an arbitrator's decision denying him income replacement benefits and ordering repayment of benefits paid after January 28, 2004.

The appellant argued the insurer lacked a basis for its termination notice because the medical reports were allegedly received after the notice was sent.

The Director's Delegate rejected this argument, finding the reports were faxed prior to the notice.

The Delegate also found no error in the arbitrator's assessment of the appellant's credibility, employment status, and medical evidence.

The appeal was dismissed.

The applicant sought income replacement benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming he was substantially unable to perform his pre-accident job as a retail investigator.

The insurer terminated benefits and sought repayment of an overpayment.

The arbitrator dismissed the applicant's claim, finding he lacked credibility and had misrepresented his pre-accident medical condition, the nature of his injuries, and the reasons for leaving his employment.

The arbitrator concluded the applicant left his job due to poor performance rather than accident-related injuries.

The applicant was ordered to repay $1,140.30 in overpaid benefits.