12 total
Application for arbitration dismissed with costs after applicant failed to attend hearing.
The applicant failed to attend the scheduled arbitration hearing.
The applicant's counsel requested to be removed from the record due to a breakdown in the solicitor-client relationship, which was granted.
The insurer brought a motion to dismiss the application for arbitration.
After the applicant failed to respond to a post-hearing letter within 30 days, the arbitrator dismissed the application and awarded $500 in expenses to the insurer.
The court awarded $34,500 in non-pecuniary damages after applying the $15,000 statutory deductible in an undefended motor vehicle accident trial.
This was an undefended trial for Thomas Thomas seeking general non-pecuniary damages for injuries sustained in a motor vehicle collision.
The defendants, Pin to Pin Express Inc. and Gary Hinrichsen, were noted in default.
The court assessed damages, applied the Bill 59 threshold, and determined the statutory deductible and pre-judgment interest.
The plaintiff Thomas Thomas was awarded $34,500 in non-pecuniary damages after the deductible, plus pre and post-judgment interest and costs.
The claim of Maria MMA Thomas did not proceed at this trial.
Burn injuries sustained while repairing a vehicle do not constitute an accident for statutory accident benefits.
The applicant sought statutory accident benefits after sustaining burn injuries while repairing his wife's van.
The insurer denied the claim on the basis that the incident was not an 'accident' under the Schedule.
The arbitrator found that repairing a vehicle in a garage does not constitute the use or operation of an automobile.
Furthermore, the use of an air compressor to repair the vehicle was an intervening act that broke the chain of causation.
The application for benefits was dismissed.
Costs of $9,203.49 awarded to the successful applicant on a partial indemnity basis following judicial review.
The applicant sought costs following a successful judicial review application.
The parties agreed that costs should be awarded on a partial indemnity basis.
The applicant claimed $10,796.66, while the respondent argued for a lower amount.
The Divisional Court considered the respondent's conduct, which might have warranted solicitor and client costs, but also noted that the arguments were substantially similar to those at the lower level, allowing for economies in preparation.
Applying the principle of reasonable expectations, the court awarded the applicant $9,203.49 in total costs.
Tribunal has jurisdiction under SPPA s. 23(1) to order costs against a representative for abuse of process.
The applicant insurer sought judicial review of a decision by the Director's Delegate of the Financial Services Commission of Ontario.
The Arbitrator had found that a treatment provider forged the insureds' signatures to commence an arbitration for accident benefits after the claim was already settled.
The Arbitrator added the provider as a party and ordered him to pay the arbitration expenses due to his flagrant abuse of process.
The Director's Delegate overturned the expense order, finding the Arbitrator lacked jurisdiction to make such an order against a non-party.
The Divisional Court quashed the Director's Delegate's decision, holding that section 23(1) of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act grants the tribunal broad powers to control its process, including the jurisdiction to order an abuser of the process to compensate innocent parties for expenses incurred.
Arbitration stayed to prevent multiple proceedings where the applicant had already commenced a comprehensive civil action.
The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and commenced a civil action against the at-fault driver and the insurer for various damages and benefits.
She subsequently applied for arbitration at the Financial Services Commission of Ontario for supplementary medical, rehabilitation, and care benefits.
The insurer brought a motion to stay the arbitration on the basis of the related and more comprehensive tort action.
The Arbitrator applied the test for multiple proceedings and found that the arbitration involved substantially similar issues, would require overlapping evidence, and could lead to inconsistent results.
The arbitration was stayed pending the amendment of the Statement of Claim in the civil action and the outcome of the court proceeding.
Arbitrator lacked statutory authority to add paralegal as a party and order him to pay costs.
A paralegal associated with a treatment facility commenced an arbitration proceeding using forged authorizations from the insured persons.
The Arbitrator found the proceeding was unauthorized, added the paralegal as a party, and ordered him to pay the arbitration expenses of the insured persons and the insurer.
On appeal, the Director's Delegate held that the Arbitrator exceeded her authority, as there is no statutory power under the Insurance Act or the Statutory Powers Procedure Act to order a representative or non-party to pay arbitration expenses, nor to add them as a party for that purpose.
The appeal was allowed and the arbitration withdrawn.
Appeal of preliminary arbitration decision regarding third-party liability for expenses rejected as premature.
The appellants appealed an arbitrator's preliminary decision that deferred the determination of whether third-party representatives could be ordered to pay the insurer's arbitration expenses.
The Director's Delegate rejected the appeal as premature under Rule 51.2 of the Dispute Resolution Practice Code, finding that the arbitrator had not yet made a final order for the payment of expenses and that acknowledging the appeal would cause the parties to incur additional unrecoverable expenses.
Arbitration for accident benefits barred by prior full and final release and limitation period.
The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and received statutory accident benefits from the insurer.
She signed a Full and Final Release in December 1998.
Two years later, a rehabilitation centre commenced mediation and arbitration proceedings in her name for unpaid transportation and assessment expenses.
The arbitrator held that the applicant was barred from proceeding by the clear terms of the release, which excluded the disputed expenses.
Furthermore, the claim for the assessment fee was barred by the two-year limitation period.
The arbitrator declined to find the arbitration frivolous or vexatious under s. 282(11.2) of the Insurance Act, but ordered the applicant to pay the insurer's expenses due to her lack of success and the hindrance caused by her representative's conduct.
Neither party awarded expenses where applicant was largely unsuccessful and malingering, but obtained minor benefits.
The applicant sought expenses following an arbitration decision where he was largely unsuccessful in his claims for statutory accident benefits.
The insurer also sought its expenses.
The arbitrator considered the criteria under Rule 73.2 of the Dispute Resolution Practice Code.
The arbitrator found that the applicant's lack of credibility and malingering militated against him receiving his expenses.
However, the insurer was also denied its expenses because the applicant had to proceed with the hearing to obtain the minor benefits to which he was entitled.
Neither party was awarded expenses.
Applicant's residual earning capacity determined to be zero due to severe accident-related depression and anxiety.
The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and subsequently developed severe depression and anxiety.
The insurer terminated her loss of earning capacity benefits, arguing her residual earning capacity was greater than her pre-accident earning capacity based on a RECDAC assessment suggesting she could work part-time as a general office clerk.
The arbitrator rejected the RECDAC's conclusion, finding the work simulation inadequate and preferring the evidence of the applicant's treating psychiatrist and a vocational rehabilitation specialist.
The arbitrator concluded that the applicant's psychological impairments rendered her residual earning capacity zero.
Application not dismissed for failure to attend preliminary hearing due to applicant's psychiatric condition and homelessness.
The applicant failed to attend a scheduled preliminary hearing regarding his entitlement to caregiver benefits following a motor vehicle accident.
The insurer sought to have the application dismissed.
The arbitrator found that the applicant's failure to attend was excusable due to his undisputed psychiatric condition and lack of a fixed address, which likely resulted in him not receiving actual notice of the hearing.
The application was not dismissed, and the preliminary hearing was adjourned.
The issue of expenses was deferred to the hearing arbitrator.
