Murray Tkatch

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits, specifically an income replacement benefit, following an alleged motor vehicle accident.

The insurer denied the claim, alleging that the applicant was part of a fraudulent ring and had misrepresented her pre-accident employment at a hair salon.

The arbitrator found that while the insurer did not conclusively prove the applicant's participation in a fraudulent ring, the applicant's evidence regarding her employment and post-accident disability was riddled with inconsistencies, gaps, and admitted untruths.

Due to profound credibility issues and a lack of credible medical evidence supporting a substantial inability to perform her pre-accident employment tasks, the application for an income replacement benefit and a special award was dismissed.

The Applicant claimed statutory accident benefits, including income replacement benefits, following an alleged motor vehicle accident.

The Insurer denied the claims, alleging the Applicant was part of a ring to defraud insurers and that her employment was fabricated.

The Arbitrator found insufficient evidence to prove the Applicant was a knowing participant in a fraud ring, but dismissed her claim for income replacement benefits due to significant contradictions in her evidence regarding her pre-accident employment and a lack of credible evidence demonstrating an inability to perform the essential tasks of her employment.

The claim for a special award was also dismissed.

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

At a pre-hearing discussion, the arbitrator ordered the insurer to produce its adjusting file up to the date of mediation and to confirm within 60 days whether it intended to rely on any surveillance or investigation evidence.

The insurer objected, arguing that under Rule 40 of the Dispute Resolution Practice Code, it was only required to produce such evidence 30 days before the hearing.

The arbitrator clarified the order, holding that Rule 40 does not create a new class of privilege and that the insurer must produce surveillance evidence created prior to the mediation date, and must confirm its intention to rely on any evidence within 60 days.

The applicant applied for arbitration at the Financial Services Commission of Ontario following a motor vehicle accident and a dispute over statutory accident benefits.

At the outset of the hearing, the applicant advised that he did not wish to proceed.

The arbitrator dismissed the application on consent, with each party bearing their own expenses.

The applicant was successful in a preliminary issue hearing determining he was involved in an accident.

He subsequently sought his expenses.

The insurer requested an adjournment of the expense hearing to bring a motion for the arbitrator's recusal based on alleged bias.

The arbitrator denied the adjournment, finding the bias motion was brought over a year after the alleged events and without proper notice.

The arbitrator awarded the applicant his legal fees and disbursements for the preliminary issue hearing, as well as costs for the unnecessary expense hearing and frivolous bias motion.

The applicant's paralegal abandoned his practice and failed to appear at the scheduled arbitration hearing, necessitating an adjournment.

The arbitrator ordered $1,500 in costs thrown away payable to the insurer.

In this subsequent hearing to determine who should pay the costs, the arbitrator found that the paralegal's conduct caused expenses to be incurred without reasonable cause.

The arbitrator ordered the paralegal to personally pay the $1,500 in costs, finding that neither the applicant nor the lawyer she subsequently attempted to retain were responsible for the adjournment.

The applicant claimed statutory accident benefits after allegedly being injured while a passenger on a TTC bus that was struck from behind by a car.

The insurer denied the claim on the basis that the applicant could not prove he was a passenger on the bus at the time of the accident.

Following a hearing on this preliminary issue, the arbitrator found the applicant and his witness to be credible, noting their evidence was consistent with the bus driver's testimony and occurrence report.

The arbitrator concluded on a balance of probabilities that the applicant was a passenger on the bus and was involved in an accident as defined in the Schedule.

The applicant was injured in two motor vehicle accidents in November 1997 and received statutory accident benefits until the insurer terminated his income replacement benefits in September 1998.

The applicant sought arbitration, claiming ongoing disability due to a severe psychiatric condition, including post-traumatic stress disorder and depression with psychotic features.

The insurer argued the condition was pre-existing and not caused by the accidents.

The arbitrator found that while the applicant had a pre-existing personality disorder, he had reached a functional equilibrium prior to the accidents.

The accidents materially contributed to the deterioration of his mental condition, rendering him completely unable to engage in any employment.

The arbitrator ordered the insurer to pay ongoing income replacement benefits.

The applicant was injured while a passenger on a TTC streetcar.

She did not notify her husband's insurer of her intention to apply for accident benefits until 11 months after the accident, well past the 30-day requirement under section 59 of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The insurer denied the claim due to late notice.

The applicant argued she had a reasonable excuse because her husband, fearing increased premiums, refused to provide his insurance details despite her repeated requests.

The arbitrator found that the applicant's excuse was reasonable given the family's patriarchal dynamic and her inability to obtain the information otherwise.

The insurer's motion to dismiss the claim was denied, allowing the applicant to proceed to arbitration on the merits.

The applicant sought income replacement and supplementary medical benefits following a 1994 motor vehicle accident.

The insurer terminated benefits, arguing the applicant could return to his pre-accident employment as a shipper/receiver.

The arbitrator found that the applicant suffered only soft-tissue injuries, not a cervical disc herniation, and that these injuries did not substantially disable him from his essential tasks.

The applicant's credibility was severely undermined by his failure to disclose pre-existing injuries, inconsistent symptom reporting, and surveillance evidence.

The insurer's claim for repayment of benefits due to undisclosed workers' compensation benefits was dismissed because the WCB benefits were permanent, not temporary.

The applicant's claims were dismissed, but he was awarded half his arbitration expenses.

The applicant, a self-employed taxi driver, was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits.

The insurer denied transportation expenses because the applicant paid a friend to drive him, and paid only the minimum weekly income benefits, arguing the applicant lacked sufficient financial records.

The arbitrator ordered the insurer to pay the transportation expenses, finding them reasonable and required.

The arbitrator also ordered the insurer to pay weekly income benefits based on the applicant's trip sheets, finding them to be the best evidence of income for a cash business, resulting in an award for the underpaid amount.