3 total
Reconsideration request dismissed; respondent failed to identify errors of law or fact in IRB repayment decision.
The respondent requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision ordering him to repay an income replacement benefit (IRB) of $10,847.17 to the applicant insurer.
The respondent argued the Tribunal erred by failing to distinguish between gross and net income from his delivery activities and by not considering his impecuniosity.
The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the original decision properly considered net earnings calculations and correctly rejected the impecuniosity argument.
The Tribunal concluded the respondent was attempting to re-litigate his case without identifying any error of law or fact.
Insured ordered to repay $10,847.17 in income replacement benefits due to wilful misrepresentation of self-employment income.
The applicant insurer sought repayment of $10,847.17 in income replacement benefits (IRBs) paid to the respondent, alleging the respondent wilfully misrepresented his employment status by failing to report income earned as a delivery driver while receiving IRBs.
The respondent argued he was unaware of the requirement to report part-time self-employment income and claimed financial hardship.
The Tribunal found the respondent wilfully misrepresented his income and ordered repayment of the overpaid IRBs plus interest.
The Tribunal declined to award costs to the applicant, finding the respondent's conduct did not meet the threshold of being unreasonable, frivolous, vexatious, or in bad faith.
Arbitrator's refusal to order documentary disclosure in an indemnity dispute was unreasonable due to conflation of statutory schemes.
The appellant insurer appealed an arbitrator's decision dismissing its pre-hearing motion for documentary disclosure in an indemnity dispute.
The dispute arose after a pedestrian was struck by a car insured by the appellant and claimed statutory accident benefits from the respondent insurer under his father's motorcycle policy.
The appellant sought disclosure regarding how the claim came to be adjusted under the motorcycle policy rather than the stepmother's auto policy.
The Divisional Court allowed the appeal in part, finding the arbitrator's decision unreasonable because he conflated the statutory schemes for priority and indemnity disputes and improperly decided the issue of the claimant's choice of insurer based on an incomplete evidentiary record.
The court ordered the respondent to produce documents related to the claimant's choice of policy.
