Marko Djukic

The Insurer brought a motion to stay the applicant's arbitration for statutory accident benefits, along with 14 other similar cases, pending the resolution of a civil action it commenced against several treatment facilities for alleged fraud and unjust enrichment.

The Insurer argued that proceeding with the arbitrations would result in a multiplicity of proceedings and potential inconsistent findings.

The Arbitrator applied the RJR-MacDonald test and dismissed the motion, finding that the Insurer failed to establish that it would suffer irreparable harm or that allowing the cases to proceed would constitute an abuse of process.

The Arbitrator noted that the civil action could take years to resolve and that the insured persons were not named as defendants in that action.

The insurer brought a motion to stay the FSCO arbitration proceedings of the applicant and fourteen others, arguing that it had commenced a civil action against several rehabilitation facilities for alleged fraud and unjust enrichment.

The insurer sought the stay to avoid a multiplicity of proceedings and inconsistent findings.

The arbitrator applied the RJR-MacDonald test and found that the insurer failed to establish irreparable harm or that proceeding would constitute an abuse of process.

The motion for a stay was dismissed.

The Insurer brought a motion to stay the Applicant's arbitration proceeding, along with 14 other similar cases, pending the resolution of a civil action it commenced against several rehabilitation facilities for alleged fraud and unjust enrichment.

The Insurer argued that proceeding with the arbitrations would result in a multiplicity of proceedings and potential inconsistent findings.

The Arbitrator applied the RJR-MacDonald test and dismissed the motion, finding that the Insurer failed to establish that it would suffer irreparable harm or that proceeding with the arbitrations would constitute an abuse of process.

The Arbitrator noted that the civil action could take years to resolve and that the Applicant would be prejudiced by the delay.

The insurer brought a motion to stay the applicant's claim for statutory accident benefits, along with 14 other similar claims, pending the resolution of a civil action it commenced against several rehabilitation facilities for alleged fraud and unjust enrichment.

The insurer argued that proceeding at FSCO would result in a multiplicity of proceedings and inconsistent findings.

The arbitrator applied the RJR-MacDonald test and dismissed the motion, finding that the insurer failed to establish that it would suffer irreparable harm or that allowing the case to proceed would constitute an abuse of process.

The arbitrator noted that the applicant was not a party to the civil action and would be prejudiced by a delay.

The insurer brought a motion to stay the applicant's arbitration proceeding for statutory accident benefits, along with 14 other similar cases.

The insurer argued that a stay was necessary because it had commenced a civil action against the treatment facilities involved in the claims, alleging fraud and unjust enrichment.

The arbitrator applied the RJR-MacDonald test for a stay of proceedings and found that the insurer failed to establish that it would suffer irreparable harm or that allowing the arbitration to proceed would constitute an abuse of process.

The motion for a stay was dismissed.

The Insurer brought a motion to stay 15 FSCO arbitration proceedings, including this one, pending the resolution of a Superior Court action it commenced against several assessment facilities for alleged fraud and unjust enrichment.

The Insurer argued that proceeding at FSCO would result in a multiplicity of proceedings and inconsistent findings.

The Arbitrator applied the RJR-MacDonald test and dismissed the motion, finding that the Insurer failed to establish that it would suffer irreparable harm or that proceeding at FSCO would constitute an abuse of process.

The Arbitrator noted that the insured persons were not named as defendants in the court action and that staying their accident benefits claims would cause presumed prejudice.

The Insurer brought a motion to stay the Applicant's arbitration proceeding for statutory accident benefits.

The Insurer argued a stay was warranted because it had commenced a civil action against the rehabilitation facilities for alleged fraud, and alternatively, because the Applicant refused to submit to an examination under oath.

The Arbitrator dismissed the motion, finding the Insurer failed to establish irreparable harm or that a stay was necessary to prevent an abuse of process under the RJR-MacDonald test.

The Arbitrator also held that while an insurer's right to an examination under oath is not extinguished by litigation, a stay is an extraordinary remedy that was not justified on the evidence.

The insurer brought a motion to stay the applicant's arbitration proceeding for statutory accident benefits.

The insurer argued a stay was warranted because it had commenced a civil action against the rehabilitation facilities used by the applicant for alleged fraud, and alternatively because the applicant refused to submit to an examination under oath.

The arbitrator dismissed the motion, finding the insurer failed to establish irreparable harm or an abuse of process under the RJR-MacDonald test.

The arbitrator also held that while an insurer's right to an examination under oath is not extinguished by litigation, a stay of proceedings is an extraordinary remedy that was not justified on the evidence.

The applicant's law firm brought a motion to be removed as legal counsel, citing an inability to obtain instructions and a breakdown in the solicitor-client relationship.

The arbitrator denied the motion, finding that allowing counsel to withdraw at this critical stage—when the applicant faced a $13,512.61 expense claim from the insurer—would leave the applicant significantly disadvantaged and bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

The law firm was ordered to continue representing the applicant and file reply submissions.

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

The applicant's representative brought a motion to withdraw due to a breakdown in the solicitor-client relationship, citing the applicant's failure to attend scheduled examinations.

The applicant failed to attend the motion and the scheduled arbitration hearing.

The arbitrator granted the representative's motion to withdraw and dismissed the application for arbitration due to the applicant's non-attendance.