Michael Atlas

The moving party, counsel of record for the applicant, brought a motion to be removed as solicitor of record due to an alleged breakdown in the solicitor-client relationship.

The applicant opposed the motion.

The arbitration had been delayed for years due to concerns regarding the applicant's capacity to instruct counsel, and the moving party's law firm had previously undertaken to have a litigation guardian appointed but failed to do so.

The arbitrator found that the moving party failed to fulfill a subsequent undertaking to produce medical evidence addressing the applicant's capacity.

Given the ongoing ambiguity regarding capacity, the failure to abide by undertakings, and the prejudice to the applicant, the arbitrator declined to exercise discretion to release the moving party as solicitor of record and adjourned the matter for the production of medical evidence.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought supplementary medical and rehabilitation benefits.

The insurer rejected the claims and argued that the applicant was time-barred from proceeding to arbitration because she applied outside the two-year limitation period under section 281(5) of the Insurance Act.

Applying the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in Smith v. Co-operators Insurance Company, the arbitrator found that the insurer's notices of refusal did not provide full details of the dispute resolution process as required by section 71 of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

Consequently, there was no valid refusal, the limitation period never began to run, and the applicant was permitted to proceed to arbitration.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident involving a streetcar and sought statutory accident benefits.

The insurer argued that the applicant's claims for income replacement benefits and supplementary medical benefits were time-barred under section 281(5) of the Insurance Act and section 72 of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The arbitrator found that the insurer's initial communications did not constitute a clear and unequivocal refusal of a crystallized claim for income replacement benefits.

The arbitrator also held that an insurer cannot issue a blanket refusal in advance for future supplementary medical benefits.

The applicant was permitted to proceed to arbitration for her income replacement benefits claim and for supplementary medical benefits claimed after March 20, 1998.