Margaret Gratsias

The applicant sought Non-Earner Benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming a complete inability to carry on a normal life due to physical and psychological impairments.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that surveillance evidence showing the applicant shopping and lifting items contradicted her reported limitations.

The Tribunal also noted the applicant's pre-existing end-stage renal failure and an intervening accident as complicating factors.

Additionally, the Tribunal dismissed the applicant's procedural objections, finding no breach of her s. 14 Charter right to an interpreter and no denial of natural justice regarding the refusal to hear closing arguments.

The Applicant sought a non-earner benefit following a motor vehicle accident.

At the commencement of the arbitration hearing, the Applicant requested to withdraw from the proceeding.

The Insurer agreed to the withdrawal but sought its expenses, citing the Applicant's delay in productions and a meritless preliminary issue.

The Arbitrator permitted the withdrawal and awarded the Insurer $6,000 in expenses, finding that the Insurer was successful in having the claim withdrawn and was entitled to reasonable costs, though the amount claimed was reduced due to excessive hours and the Insurer's own missteps.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident while riding his bicycle.

He applied for accident benefits, initially electing a non-earner benefit, but later claimed entitlement to an income replacement benefit.

The arbitrator found that the applicant failed to prove he had a reasonable explanation for delaying his re-election.

Furthermore, the applicant did not meet the eligibility criteria for an income replacement benefit, as he was not employed for at least 26 weeks in the 52 weeks prior to the accident and was not receiving employment insurance benefits at the time of the accident.

The arbitrator also concluded that the applicant did not suffer a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of his employment.

The claims for an income replacement benefit and a special award were dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits after an incident on a TTC bus where he engaged in a physical altercation with another passenger, fell, and allegedly injured his toe, which later led to a leg amputation.

The insurer denied the claim on the basis that the incident was not an 'accident' under section 2(1) of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The arbitrator found that the incident was an assault, not an accident, as the bus merely provided the location for the fight and was not moving at the time.

Furthermore, the assault was an intervening act that broke the chain of causation, and the applicant failed to establish a causal link between the bus incident and his subsequent amputation.

The preliminary issue was resolved in favour of the insurer.