William G Woodward

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that found he was barred from proceeding with his accident benefits dispute because a 2016 settlement agreement was valid and not vitiated by incapacity.

The applicant argued the Tribunal erred in law and breached procedural fairness by excluding a retrospective capacity assessment, improperly weighing evidence of his emotional dysregulation, and demonstrating a reasonable apprehension of bias against his counsel's law firm.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding no errors of law or procedural fairness, and concluding that the applicant was improperly attempting to re-litigate the weighing of evidence.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a 2014 motor vehicle accident.

The respondent argued the application was barred because the parties had executed a full-and-final settlement in November 2016.

The applicant contended he lacked the mental capacity to enter into the settlement agreement at that time.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's contemporaneous academic records and cognitive test scores demonstrated he had the capacity to understand the agreement and instruct counsel.

The Tribunal held the settlement was valid and dismissed the application pursuant to s. 9.1(8) of Regulation 664.

The applicant was injured in a motorcycle accident and sought a determination of catastrophic impairment.

The insurer initially denied the determination pending insurer examinations.

The applicant sought $14,238.00 for the cost of catastrophic examinations obtained to support his application.

The Tribunal found the applicant was not precluded from obtaining examinations before the insurer completed its own, and that the costs were reasonable and necessary.

The Tribunal ordered the insurer to pay the examination costs with interest, but denied the applicant's request for a special award, finding the insurer had not acted unreasonably.

The applicant was injured in a rear-end motor vehicle accident and subsequently developed complete hearing loss in his left ear and partial hearing loss in his right ear due to a labyrinthine concussion.

He applied for non-earner benefits, housekeeping benefits, and a determination of catastrophic impairment.

The arbitrator found that the applicant's hearing loss and resulting psychological impairments continuously prevented him from engaging in substantially all of his pre-accident activities, entitling him to non-earner benefits.

The arbitrator also concluded that the applicant sustained a catastrophic impairment under criterion (g) of the Schedule, as his psychological impairments resulted in a Class 4 marked impairment in the sphere of social functioning.

The claim for housekeeping benefits was dismissed.

The insurer was ordered to pay the applicant's arbitration expenses.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and received statutory accident benefits, including an income replacement benefit.

She also received a monthly disability benefit of $6,175.00 from a private RBC insurance policy.

The insurer sought to deduct the RBC benefit from the income replacement benefit under section 7 of the SABS.

The arbitrator held that the RBC policy met the criteria of an 'income continuation benefit plan' under section 2(9) of the SABS, as it was offered only to employed persons and the maximum benefit was calculated with reference to employment income.

Therefore, the RBC benefit was deductible.

The applicant, who was catastrophically injured in a motor vehicle accident, brought a motion to compel the insurer to pay $252,000 towards home modifications or the purchase of a new home.

The insurer had previously indicated it would consider paying this amount but argued it was not yet payable because the applicant had not incurred the expense or provided an invoice.

The arbitrator found that while the insurer had agreed to pay the amount, the applicant had not taken concrete steps towards purchasing a new home or renovating his existing home to constitute an 'invoice' under section 38 of the Schedule.

The motion was dismissed, along with claims for interest and a special award.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits, including caregiver benefits and medical expenses, alleging that a 1994 motor vehicle accident caused a disc herniation in 1996.

The arbitrator found that the applicant's evidence regarding the onset of her disability was unsupported by contemporary medical documentation, which indicated the disability began at the time of the herniation, more than two years after the accident.

Furthermore, expert medical evidence failed to establish a causal link between the 1994 accident and the 1996 disc herniation.

All claims for benefits, expenses, and a special award were denied.

In a dispute over statutory accident benefits, the parties sought preliminary rulings on the production of documents.

The arbitrator ordered the insurer to produce draft reports and clinical notes of IME and DAC assessors, finding that such statutorily mandated assessments are not protected by litigation privilege.

The arbitrator also ordered the insurer to produce its complete accident benefits file, including adjusters' notes and reserve information, up to the date the applicant applied for mediation, applying the dominant purpose test.

The insurer was further ordered to produce all surveillance evidence if it intended to rely on any part of it.

The applicant's requests for the insurer's policy manuals and legal opinions were denied.

Finally, the applicant's Canada Pension Plan file was ordered produced as it was relevant to her medical condition.