Lorraine E. Takacs

The applicant's counsel brought a motion to be removed as solicitors of record for the applicant in an upcoming arbitration.

Counsel submitted that they had lost contact with the applicant despite multiple attempts to reach him at his last known address and telephone numbers, including a number in New Jersey.

The insurer did not object to the withdrawal but requested a peremptory notice of hearing.

The arbitrator found a breakdown in the solicitor-client relationship and permitted the firm to withdraw without terms.

The request for a peremptory notice was denied as unnecessary.

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

The insurer denied further physiotherapy, and the applicant failed to attend two scheduled Designated Assessment Centre (DAC) appointments.

The insurer argued her claims should be barred.

On a preliminary issue, the arbitrator found the applicant had a reasonable excuse for missing the first appointment due to an emergency move to a shelter.

While she lacked a reasonable excuse for the second missed appointment, the insurer improperly demanded immediate cash repayment of DAC no-show fees before scheduling a third appointment, contrary to the Schedule.

The arbitrator ruled the applicant's claims for medical and rehabilitation benefits could proceed to a full hearing.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and applied for statutory accident benefits.

The parties resolved the substantive issues prior to a scheduled preliminary issue hearing, but the issue of arbitration expenses remained in dispute.

The insurer argued that the arbitrator lacked jurisdiction to award expenses because no hearing on the merits had taken place.

The arbitrator held that under the Insurance Act and the Dispute Resolution Practice Code, the Commission has explicit jurisdiction to decide a claim for expenses in relation to a matter that has been resolved prior to a preliminary issue hearing.

The applicant was found severely injured in a driveway between two houses with no memory of the incident.

He claimed statutory accident benefits, alleging he was struck by a motor vehicle.

The insurer denied the claim, arguing the injuries resulted from an assault.

After hearing extensive medical expert testimony regarding the pattern and severity of the injuries, the arbitrator concluded on a balance of probabilities that the injuries were consistent with a pedestrian-automobile collision and ruled that the applicant was involved in an 'accident' under the Schedule.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and applied for statutory accident benefits.

The parties settled all substantive issues in dispute prior to the conclusion of the arbitration.

The applicant sought an order for the expenses of the arbitration proceeding.

The insurer argued the arbitrator lacked jurisdiction to award expenses because the settlement ended the proceeding.

The arbitrator held that jurisdiction continues until an order is made ending the proceeding.

After considering the criteria for awarding expenses, including the mixed success of the parties and the unnecessary motion brought by the applicant, the arbitrator ordered each party to bear their own expenses.

The insurer sought production of an accounting report prepared by the defendants in a related tort action, which the applicant had received.

The applicant initially opposed production on the basis of litigation privilege but abandoned that position.

The arbitrator ordered the applicant to produce the report, finding that it was relevant to the quantum of income replacement benefits and that its production would likely simplify and expedite the arbitration process by avoiding the need for the insurer to commission a further report.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and applied for arbitration after the insurer terminated her income replacement benefits.

At the hearing, the parties resolved all substantive issues but disagreed on the form of the order.

The insurer sought a dismissal of the arbitration based on its agreement to reinstate benefits, while the applicant sought an order confirming her entitlement.

The arbitrator ruled that an agreement to pay benefits is not equivalent to an order, as an order restricts the insurer's rights to terminate benefits.

The hearing was adjourned to allow the applicant to pursue an order for entitlement.

A preliminary issue regarding the non-production of documents was deemed moot due to the adjournment.

The applicant was injured when a vehicle backed into her in a parking facility.

She applied for and received statutory accident benefits, including housekeeping and caregiver benefits, up to January 27, 2004.

The insurer terminated these benefits based on an insurer's medical examination.

The arbitrator dismissed the application for ongoing benefits, finding that the applicant failed to prove she suffered a substantial inability to perform her pre-accident housekeeping and caregiving duties.

Furthermore, the applicant failed to adduce sufficient evidence to prove the expenses she allegedly incurred for these services were reasonable and necessary.

The applicant claimed statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The insurer denied benefits, alleging material misrepresentation based on discrepancies between the applicant's statement and a truck driver's statement.

The insurer sought production of the Crown brief from related criminal charges against the applicant.

The arbitrator held that the insurer must follow the screening mechanism established in D.P. v. Wagg to compel production of the Crown brief, which requires notice to the Attorney General and the relevant police service.

The arbitrator ordered the applicant to first disclose the nature of the charges and list any Crown brief materials in her possession.

The applicant claimed statutory accident benefits following an alleged motor vehicle accident.

The insurer denied the claims, relying on engineering reports suggesting the accident did not occur as reported and may have been staged.

The applicant failed to attend the arbitration hearing.

The arbitrator found that the applicant failed to prove she was involved in an accident or sustained an impairment, dismissing all claims for benefits.

The applicant was ordered to pay the insurer's arbitration expenses due to her failure to attend and pursue her claim, which rendered the proceeding improper, vexatious, and unnecessary.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and received income replacement benefits until the insurer terminated them on March 19, 1997.

The applicant disputed the termination and eventually applied for arbitration on August 10, 1999.

The insurer raised a preliminary issue that the application was filed beyond the two-year limitation period.

The arbitrator found that the insurer's notice of termination was clear and unequivocal, and that the insurer was not estopped from relying on the limitation period despite ongoing requests for information regarding the quantum of benefits.

The arbitrator concluded that the application for arbitration was filed more than 90 days after the mediator's report, precluding the applicant from proceeding to arbitration on the issue of ongoing entitlement.

The applicant sought to proceed to arbitration on claims for rehabilitation, housekeeping, and supplementary medical benefits.

The insurer argued these claims were statute-barred because a separate application for arbitration was not filed within the two-year limitation period following the refusal of benefits.

The arbitrator found that the applicant had complied with the spirit of the legislation, as the issues were mediated shortly after the application was filed and the insurer had clear notice of the claims.

The arbitrator ordered that all issues, including income replacement benefits, be heard together at the main arbitration hearing.