Susan Keenan

The applicant, Valero Energy Inc., brought a motion in its application for judicial review seeking an order to compel the respondents to produce a further record of proceedings, including internal Cabinet and Ministerial documents.

The underlying application challenges a regulation imposing domestic renewable content requirements for fuels.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding that the Judicial Review Procedure Act does not require a record of proceedings for a challenge to a regulation, as making a regulation is not a 'statutory power of decision'.

The court declined to exercise its inherent jurisdiction to order production, noting that judicial review of a regulation is a limited exercise in statutory interpretation and does not afford a right to documentary discovery.

The applicant sought expenses following a successful appeal of an arbitrator's decision that had dismissed his application for accident benefits on preliminary issues.

The Director's Delegate allowed the appeal and permitted an expense hearing if the parties could not agree.

The arbitrator found that the applicant was 100% successful on the appeal and was therefore entitled to his expenses for that proceeding.

As the applicant's bill of costs included work for the entire arbitration rather than just the appeal, the arbitrator estimated the reasonable hours spent on the appeal and awarded $2,418.20 inclusive of fees, disbursements, and HST.

Following the dismissal of the insured's appeal, the successful insurer requested an expense hearing.

The insurer sought $7,446.03 in legal fees and disbursements for the appeal proceeding.

The Director's Delegate found the amount sought excessive, noting the insured was self-represented and her submissions largely attempted to adduce new evidence and re-argue determined issues.

The Delegate fixed the expenses payable by the insured to the insurer at $3,000.00.

The appellant appealed an arbitrator's decision denying her claims for caregiver, housekeeping, attendant care, and medical benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The appellant argued that the arbitrator erred in law, lacked procedural fairness, and misapprehended evidence.

The Director's Delegate dismissed the appeal, finding that the arbitrator properly weighed the evidence, made reasonable findings of fact, and committed no errors of law or breaches of procedural fairness.

The appellant appealed an arbitrator's order precluding him from proceeding to arbitration for failure to attend insurer examinations (IEs) and finding his claim for attendant care benefits was time-barred.

The appellant was incarcerated at the time of the scheduled IE.

The Director's Delegate held that the arbitrator erred in refusing to consider the appellant's reasonable excuse for non-attendance.

The Delegate found that incarceration was a reasonable excuse, and the appellant had no duty to reschedule the IE upon his release; his only duty was to attend a properly scheduled IE.

The Delegate also found that the attendant care benefits claim was not time-barred, as it was for a limited period ending before the insurer's denial, and a formal denial is not a prerequisite for a dispute.

The appeal was allowed and the arbitrator's order was rescinded.