Lora Castellucci

Certas Home & Auto Insurance Company appealed an interim arbitration decision which held that Unifund Assurance Company had complied with the notice provisions under s. 3(1) of O. Reg. 283/95 (Disputes Between Insurers) by providing timely notice of a priority dispute for statutory accident benefits.

The core issue was the interpretation of "completed application" and when the 90-day notice period for disputing liability began.

The court dismissed the appeal, finding no error of law or palpable and overriding error in the arbitrator's interpretation or application of the regulation.

The court affirmed that a "completed application" for the purpose of s. 3 means one that provides sufficient information to allow the first insurer to notify another insurer of a dispute, not merely a filled-out and signed OCF-1 form.

The defendant was charged with breaching section 78.1(1) of the Highway Traffic Act for using a cell phone while driving.

A police officer testified that he observed the defendant holding and scrolling through a cell phone while stopped at a red light.

The defendant testified that his phone was mounted on the dashboard and he only touched it to activate Bluetooth connectivity.

The trial judge convicted the defendant, finding the officer's evidence more credible.

The defendant appealed, arguing the trial judge's reasons failed to adequately explain the path to conviction and that the trial judge failed to apply the burden of proof correctly.