Myron L. Sidenberg

Following a motor vehicle accident, the insured received statutory accident benefits until his insurer terminated payment and an arbitrator found that most of his health problems were not caused by the accident.

In the subsequent tort action against the tortfeasor, the motion judge held that the plaintiff was issue estopped from relitigating causation because the tortfeasor was a privy of the insurer.

The Court of Appeal reversed, holding that the statutory scheme under the Insurance Act creates separate alternative proceedings and does not support importing issue estoppel from SAB arbitration into the tort action.

The respondent had no right to participate in the arbitration and lacked the sufficient identity of interest required for privity.

The appeal was allowed and the arbitral findings were held not binding in the personal injury action.

The applicant, a taxi driver, was injured in a motor vehicle accident and received weekly income benefits until the insurer terminated them.

He applied for arbitration seeking ongoing benefits and a higher weekly quantum, while the insurer sought repayment of alleged overpayments.

The arbitrator found the applicant's medical evidence unreliable due to his failure to disclose extensive pre-existing physical and psychological conditions to his assessors, and concluded he failed to prove his ongoing disability was caused by the accident.

The arbitrator set the weekly benefit at the statutory minimum due to unreliable income records, but denied the insurer's repayment claim because it failed to prove the overpayment resulted from the applicant's error.

The applicant's claim for arbitration expenses was denied due to his misrepresentations.

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

The Insurer refused to pay income replacement benefits, alleging the Applicant failed to disclose that her 21-year-old son was a licensed driver living in the household, which would have resulted in a substantially higher premium.

The Arbitrator found that the Applicant knowingly and intentionally failed to disclose material facts to avoid a higher premium.

Consequently, the Applicant was excluded from receiving income replacement benefits under section 58(3)(a) of the Schedule, and her application for arbitration was dismissed.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and received weekly income benefits until the insurer terminated them.

The applicant sought arbitration for ongoing weekly income benefits and supplementary medical benefits.

The arbitrator found the applicant's evidence regarding his pre-accident employment and income to be unreliable and contradictory, concluding he was only entitled to the minimum weekly benefit of $185.60, which had already been paid.

The arbitrator dismissed the claim for ongoing weekly benefits, finding insufficient medical evidence of a continuing disability that would prevent the applicant from working as a handyman.

The applicant was awarded $537.64 for certain supplementary medical and rehabilitation expenses, along with arbitration filing fees.