Meredith A. Harper

The appellant appealed a summary judgment dismissing her claim for Statutory Accident Benefits (SAB) on the ground that the limitation period had expired.

The respondent insurer issued an OCF-9 denying benefits in January 2007, and the claim was not commenced until approximately six years later.

The court upheld the summary judgment, finding that the denial of benefits was unequivocal and sufficient to trigger the running of the limitation period, even if the reasons provided were legally incorrect.

The court also rejected the appellant's submission that she was denied a fair hearing.

The insurer was entirely successful in the underlying arbitration regarding accident benefits and sought its expenses of $33,653.57.

The arbitrator reviewed the criteria under Rule 75.2 of the Dispute Resolution Practice Code and section 12(2) of Ontario Regulation 664.

The arbitrator found the insurer's claimed legal fees and disbursements to be excessive, noting repetitive file reviews by multiple law clerks and students, and disallowed costs for court reporting and transcripts.

The arbitrator also limited the attendance fee for the applicant's family doctor, who was treated as an expert witness, to the tariff rate.

The applicant was ordered to pay the insurer's expenses fixed at $12,910.40 inclusive of HST.

The applicant applied for statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The parties were unable to resolve their disputes, and the applicant applied for arbitration.

The applicant failed to attend the scheduled hearing and a resumed hearing, despite being given proper notice.

As the applicant bore the onus of proving entitlement to the claimed benefits and presented no evidence, her claims were dismissed.

The insurer was awarded its expenses in the amount of $5,973.84 due to the applicant's failure to participate and her provision of false particulars during the process, which caused delay and unnecessary expense.

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

A dispute arose and the applicant applied for arbitration at FSCO.

The applicant subsequently sought to add the cost of two examinations to the arbitration.

The insurer brought a preliminary issue motion arguing that FSCO lacked jurisdiction to add issues after April 1, 2016, due to legislative amendments transferring jurisdiction to the Licence Appeal Tribunal.

The arbitrator dismissed the insurer's motion, finding that FSCO has a longstanding practice of adding issues to existing arbitrations, which is supported by the Dispute Resolution Practice Code, the doctrine of legitimate expectation, and the Statutory Powers Procedure Act.

Adding the issues avoids a multiplicity of proceedings and does not cause significant prejudice to the insurer.

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

After a dispute arose, she applied for arbitration at FSCO.

She later sought to add the issue of non-earner benefits to the arbitration.

The insurer brought a preliminary issue motion arguing that FSCO lacked jurisdiction to add issues after April 1, 2016, when amendments to the Insurance Act transferred jurisdiction for new applications to the Licence Appeal Tribunal.

The arbitrator dismissed the insurer's motion, finding that FSCO retains jurisdiction to add issues to existing arbitrations, consistent with its longstanding practice, the Dispute Resolution Practice Code, and the Statutory Powers Procedure Act.

Adding the issue avoids a multiplicity of proceedings and prevents potential prejudice to the applicant regarding limitation periods.

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

The insurer refused certain benefits, leading to arbitration.

A preliminary issue hearing was held to determine if the applicant had the mental capacity to proceed in the dispute resolution process, following a previous finding that he lacked capacity.

Based on a new capacity assessment report by an occupational therapist, which concluded the applicant could manage his affairs, and the arbitrator's own observations, the arbitrator found that the applicant now has the mental capacity to proceed.

The applicant sought accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident but ceased communicating with his counsel and the tribunal.

The insurer brought a motion to dismiss the application as frivolous, vexatious, or commenced in bad faith under Rule 68 of the Dispute Resolution Practice Code, or alternatively, to deem it withdrawn under Rule 70.

The arbitrator found that a dismissal under Rule 68 was inappropriate without assessing the merits of the claim.

However, given the applicant's prolonged failure to participate, the application was deemed withdrawn under Rule 70.

The applicant was ordered to pay $500 in expenses to the insurer.

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

The insurer brought a preliminary motion to determine whether the applicant had the mental capacity to proceed in the dispute resolution process, given his history of mental health issues and erratic behaviour, including repeatedly hiring and firing legal counsel.

The arbitrator reviewed extensive medical records and the applicant's conduct during the proceedings.

The arbitrator concluded that the applicant lacked the mental capacity to proceed unrepresented and ordered him to advise within 30 days if a suitable person or guardian could act on his behalf, failing which the Public Guardian and Trustee would be requested to conduct an assessment.

The applicant sought accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

After a settlement was reportedly reached at a pre-hearing discussion, the applicant failed to execute the settlement documents and ceased communicating with her counsel.

At the scheduled arbitration hearing, the applicant did not appear.

Her counsel was granted permission to withdraw from the record.

As no evidence was introduced to support the applicant's claims, the application was dismissed.

The applicant was ordered to pay $500 in expenses to the insurer for unduly prolonging the proceeding.