Patrick C. Ho

The plaintiffs brought an action for damages arising from a motor vehicle accident involving a BMW registered to the moving party.

The moving party brought a motion for summary judgment seeking a declaration that he was not the owner of the BMW, arguing his identity had been stolen and used to fraudulently register the vehicle and obtain insurance.

The court granted the motion, finding no genuine issue requiring a trial.

The court accepted the moving party's evidence that he never purchased, owned, or registered the vehicle, nor applied for insurance, thereby rebutting the presumption of ownership under the Highway Traffic Act.

The Applicant sought to vary or revoke an earlier appeal decision that upheld an arbitrator's finding that his application for arbitration was an abuse of process.

The Applicant also sought an interim award of benefits.

The Director's Delegate denied the interim award, finding the Applicant failed to establish a prima facie case or demonstrate necessity or urgency.

The Delegate rejected the application for variation/revocation, concluding that the Applicant failed to establish any of the statutory grounds under subsection 284(3) of the Insurance Act, namely new evidence, a material change in circumstances, or an error in the order.

The Delegate awarded $1,500 in legal expenses to the Respondent.

The appellant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and settled his claim for statutory accident benefits in 1998.

In 2010, he applied for arbitration, arguing the settlement was invalid because the insurer failed to provide a proper Settlement Disclosure Notice explaining the commuted value of his income replacement benefits.

The Arbitrator found the settlement enforceable and held that the renewed application was an abuse of process given the appellant's withdrawal of a similar application in 2001.

On appeal, the Director's Delegate found the Arbitrator erred in law regarding the settlement's enforceability, as there was no evidence the insurer complied with the commuted value disclosure requirement.

However, the Delegate upheld the Arbitrator's finding that the renewed application was an abuse of process, precluding the appellant from proceeding to arbitration.

The appellants appealed a jury verdict that attributed 15% responsibility for a motor vehicle accident to the appellant driver and 85% to an unidentified driver.

The jury found the appellant negligent for failing to speed up and lacking defensive driving when an erratic driver approached from behind.

The Court of Appeal held that it was unreasonable to find negligence in the appellant's failure to speed up, as there was no evidence it would have avoided the accident.

The appeal was allowed, the jury verdict against the appellant was set aside, and 100% liability was attributed to the respondent.

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.