Neutral Citation: 1993 ONICDRG 29
File No. A-001978
ONTARIO INSURANCE COMMISSION
BETWEEN:
MARY PARISIEN
Applicant
and
ROYAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF CANADA
Insurer
DECISION
Issues:
The Applicant, Mary Parisien, was injured in a motor vehicle accident on July 4, 1990. She applied for and received accident benefits from the Insurer payable under Ontario Regulation 672 (the "No-Fault Benefits Schedule"), enacted under the Insurance Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. I.8.
After October 4, 1990, the Insurer stopped paying Ms. Parisien any weekly income benefits. The Applicant disputed the termination of these benefits.
The issues in this hearing were:
Is the Applicant entitled to further weekly income benefits after October 4, 1990 as a result of injuries she received in the July 4, 1990 motor vehicle accident?
What is the amount of weekly income benefit to which the Applicant is entitled?
The Applicant also claims interest on any outstanding amounts owing and her expenses incurred in the hearing.
Result:
The Applicant is entitled to weekly income benefits from October 5, 1990 and continuing.
The amount of weekly income benefit is $185.60 per week.
The Applicant is entitled to interest pursuant to section 24(4) of the No-Fault Benefits Schedule and is granted two-thirds of her expenses of the arbitration.
Hearing:
The hearing was held at North York on February 22, 23, April 13, 14, 28 and 29, 1993, before me, K. Julaine Palmer, arbitrator.
Present at the Hearing:
Applicant:
Mary Anne Parisien
Applicant's
Joram Gold
Representative:
Barrister and Solicitor
Insurer's
Nestor Kostyniuk
Representative:
Barrister & Solicitor
Witnesses:
Dr. Ana Lulic-Hrvojic
Dr. Robert Cardish
Mary Anne Parisien
Dr. Fred Kroft
Dr. Klaus Kuch
Dr. David Lowe
Dr. Franklin Wayne Furlong
Raymond Parisien
Catherine L. Powell, M.S.W.
Lawrence Lander
Donald J. McDougall
Daniel M. Edwards, C.A.
The parties filed a medical brief and 42 other exhibits.
Evidence and Findings:
The Applicant was injured in a bizarre motor vehicle accident on July 4, 1990. A motor vehicle exiting from a parking lot without stopping came into contact with Mary Parisien's vehicle. The Applicant's vehicle sustained little physical damage, since she saw the vehicle approaching and almost succeeded in avoiding a collision.
However, when the Applicant stopped her vehicle, got out, and confronted the driver of the other car, he refused to wait for the police to arrive or to exchange particulars. Instead, he put