Nancy Ng

The applicant's law firm brought a motion to be removed as solicitors of record after the applicant passed away and the firm was unable to obtain instructions from a representative of her estate.

The insurer and the solicitor acting on matters relating to the estate consented to the withdrawal.

The arbitrator granted the motion pursuant to Rule 9.8 of the Dispute Resolution Practice Code.

Following an arbitration decision regarding statutory accident benefits where both parties achieved partial success, the parties made written submissions on expenses.

The arbitrator found that the insurer's degree of success was greater, having successfully refuted claims for housekeeping and a functional abilities evaluation, while sharing success on the income replacement benefit issue.

After deducting unallowable disbursements such as court reporting and preparation fees for expert witnesses, the arbitrator ordered the applicant to pay the insurer $3,000.00 in expenses.

The appellant appealed an arbitrator's decision regarding legal expenses following a settled arbitration for statutory accident benefits.

The appeal was dismissed, and the parties were unable to agree on the costs of the appeal.

The Director's Delegate assessed the costs, finding the respondent entitled to its legal expenses for the main appeal hearing and an interim motion, while the appellant was entitled to costs for a separate motion.

After reducing the hours claimed by both parties and setting off the awards, the appellant was ordered to pay the respondent net appeal legal expenses of $4,338.44.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including medical benefits, housekeeping expenses, and the cost of a functional abilities evaluation.

The insurer denied the claims, arguing that the applicant's ongoing impairments were caused by a subsequent workplace assault and robbery, not the motor vehicle accident.

The arbitrator dismissed the application, finding that the medical documentation contemporaneous with the workplace assault attributed the applicant's injuries to that event.

The arbitrator concluded that the disputed treatment plans and assessments were not reasonable or necessary, and the applicant failed to prove a substantial inability to perform pre-accident housekeeping tasks as a result of the motor vehicle accident.

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

At a pre-hearing discussion, the insurer requested that the applicant answer five questions regarding his return to work, attendant care, caregiving, and treatment.

The applicant's counsel refused to answer three of the questions, arguing that the insurer should have requested an examination under oath and that it was now too late.

The arbitrator held that the insured has an ongoing duty of utmost good faith to disclose relevant information.

Furthermore, under section 22(1) of the Insurance Act and the Dispute Resolution Practice Code, the arbitrator has the vested power to compel the production of information.

The arbitrator ordered the applicant to provide complete written answers to the outstanding questions.

The applicant was injured in a rear-end motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits for caregiver services, housekeeping expenses, and the costs of various medical assessments.

The arbitrator found that the applicant was not the primary caregiver for his nephew's children prior to the accident, and that the invoices submitted for both caregiver and housekeeping expenses were unreliable and failed to establish the amounts claimed.

The claims for caregiver and housekeeping benefits were dismissed.

The arbitrator awarded the costs of a functional abilities evaluation and a reduced amount for an in-home assessment, but denied funding for neurological and orthopaedic assessments as they were not reasonably required.

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

The parties settled the substantive issues, with the insurer agreeing to pay $5,350 for income replacement, attendant care, and housekeeping benefits.

The only remaining issue was entitlement to the expenses of the arbitration proceeding.

The arbitrator considered the criteria under section 12 of Ontario Regulation 664 and found that success was mixed and both parties could have avoided the proceeding by acting reasonably from the outset.

The arbitrator ordered that each party bear their own expenses.