Neutral Citation: 1993 ONICDRG 68

File No. A-002188

ONTARIO INSURANCE COMMISSION

BETWEEN:

SAID MOHAMED HASSAN

Applicant

and

KINGSWAY GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY

Insurer

DECISION

Issues:

The Applicant, Said Mohamed Hassan, was injured in a motor vehicle accident on February 18, 1992. He applied to the Insurer for weekly income benefits, supplementary medical and rehabilitation benefits, and care benefits, under Ontario Regulation 672 (the "No-Fault Benefits Schedule"), enacted under the Insurance Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. I.8.

Weekly income benefits were paid until July 25, 1992, when they were terminated on the basis that Mr. Hassan no longer suffered a substantial inability to perform his essential tasks as a taxi driver. Mediation was unsuccessful in resolving the disputes between the Applicant and the Insurer, and the Applicant applied for arbitration under the Insurance Act.

The issues in this hearing are:

1. Is Mr. Hassan entitled to payment of weekly income benefits from July 26, 1992?

2. What is the correct amount of weekly income benefit payable to Mr. Hassan?

3. Is Mr. Hassan entitled to payment of supplementary medical and rehabilitation benefits for drug prescriptions, taxi transportation to and from physiotherapy and doctors' appointments, and translation services provided during medical appointments and mediation?

4. Is Mr. Hassan entitled to payment of care benefits in the form of expenses related to the provision of grocery shopping and house cleaning assistance as well as dry cleaning expenses?

5. Is Mr. Hassan entitled to a special award under section 282 of the Insurance Act?

Mr. Hassan also claims interest on any benefits owing and his expenses incurred in the proceeding.

The Insurer seeks repayment of supplementary medical and rehabilitation expenses paid to the Applicant in error.

Result:

1. Mr. Hassan is not entitled to payment of weekly income benefits from July 26, 1992.

2. The correct amount of weekly income benefit payable to Mr. Hassan for the period preceding July 26, 1992 is $185.60.

3. Mr. Hassan is entitled to payment of supplementary medical and rehabilitation benefits for drug prescriptions contained in Exhibit 10. Mr. Hassan is not entitled to expenses related to taxi transportation to and from physiotherapy and doctors' appointments, set out in Exhibits 2 and 3. Mr. Hassan is entitled to payment of the outstanding cost of translation services provided during medical appointments, contained in Exhibit 10. Expenses for translation services used during mediation are not recoverable from the Insurer.

4. Mr. Hassan is entitled to payment of outstanding expenses related to the provision of grocery shopping and house cleaning assistance as well as dry cleaning expenses (Exhibit 10) incurred up to June 15, 1992, which is the approximate period of disability defined by the medical specialists retained by the Insurer.

5. Mr. Hassan is not entitled to a special award under section 282 of the Insurance Act.

6. Mr. Hassan is entitled to payment of interest on outstanding expenses referred to in paragraphs 3 and 4 above.

7. Kingsway General Insurance Company is entitled to a repayment of supplementary medical and rehabilitation expenses, plus interest, overpaid to the Applicant in error, in accordance with the provisions of section 27 of the No-Fault Benefits Schedule.

8. Mr. Hassan is not entitled to payment of his expenses incurred in respect of the arbitration.

Hearing:

The hearing was held in North York, Ontario, on January 14, February 24 and 25, March 22 and 24, May 17, 25, 26, 27, and 31, June 21, 1993, before me, Janice Mackintosh, arbitrator.

Present at the Hearing:

Applicant:

Said Hassan

Applicant's

Munyonze Hamalengwa (January 14 and February 24, 1993)

Representative:

Barrister and Solicitor

Insurer's

Mr. Robert Robinson

Representative:

Barrister and Solicitor

Witnesses:

Six witnesses appeared and are listed in Appendix A.

Mr. Hassan was assisted by interpreters provided through Global Translations & Interpreters Services Inc.

Fifty-two exhibits were filed by the parties and are listed in Appendix "A".

The proceedings were transcribed on January 14, February 24, March 24, May 17, 25, and 26, 1993, by court reporters provided through Professional Court Reporters Inc., Rosenberger, Weir, Macdonald, and Canadian Verbatim Reporting Services Ltd. Transcripts for the dates of January 14, and March 24, 1993 were referred to during the hearing and copies were made available to both parties and the Commission.

Evidence and Findings:

Mr. Hassan is twenty-seven years old and immigrated to Canada in 1989. Following his arrival in Canada, Mr. Hassan attended school in Ottawa, completing grade twelve (Exhibit 13). The Applicant moved from Ottawa to Toronto. He started working as a cab driver with the Diamond Taxi Company during the months of November and December 1991 (Exhibit 44). In January 1992, the Applicant began to drive cab for Mr. Jagbir Singh of Jagsan Gas and Service, a division of Fleet Oil Company (Exhibit 33). The Applicant was involved in a car accident on January 11, 1992. He continued to work as a cab driver until a second car accident occurred on February 18, 1992. The Applicant claims that he has been unable to carry on his work as a taxi driver since that date.

During these proceedings, Mr. Hassan received the assistance of a series of interpreters. However, I found him to have a relatively good independent understanding of the English language. From time to time during the hearing, Mr. Hassan complained about the accuracy of some of the interpreters and provided his own evidence in English. From my observations of the Applicant and from my review of the evidence, I conclude that the Applicant has a working knowledge of the English language and is intelligent and shrewd.

Following the second accident, the Applicant provided the Insurer with various documents in an attempt to establish that during the four-week period preceding the accident (January 20, to February 17, 1992) his weekly income, after expenses, exceeded $600. For various reasons, the Insurer was unwilling to accept these figures in the absence of independent verification. All of the documentation relied upon by the Applicant to substantiate his income is self-generated and self-reported. Where independent sources of data about the Applicant's earnings exist, they tend to contradict the Applicant's position. The Insurer began to question the extent of disability claimed by the Applicant and ultimately terminated his weekly income benefits as of July 25, 1992.

Credibility:

The Applicant's self-generated documentation and his testimony are useful in determining his entitlement only to the extent that I find the Applicant himself to be a truthful and reliable witness. I have concluded that the Applicant is not a credible witness and that, in general, his testimony is unreliable. I have based my assessment of the Applicant's credibility upon the following factors.

The Applicant's testimony, given under oath, was repeatedly contradicted by the evidence and documents of third parties who have no interest in the outcome of these proceedings.

For example, prior to the commencement of the hearing, counsel for the Insurer notified counsel for the Applicant of his intention to challenge the good character of the Applicant in connection with his alleged receipt of general welfare payments while working as a cab driver, and while receiving insurance benefits (Exhibit 43). On the first day of hearing, the Applicant testified concerning his receipt of welfare payments following his car accident in February 1992. The Applicant stated, under oath, that in March 1992, he notified the social assistance authorities that he was receiving insurance benefits. He testified that he stopped receiving welfare sometime in April 1992. He stated that after the Insurer terminated his no-fault benefits in July 1992, he returned to the social assistance program (January 14, 1993 transcript of evidence, pages 40 to 45, questions 9 to 36).

In response to a summons to witness served by the Insurer, Ms. Karen Bennett, the caseworker from Metro Toronto Social Services dealing with the Applicant's welfare benefits, attended with the files maintained by Metropolitan Toronto Social Services.

The testimony of the caseworker differed significantly from that of Mr. Hassan. Ms. Bennett relied upon the documentation and file notes maintained by Metropolitan Toronto Social Services. She reviewed the computer printout of general welfare assistance payments made to Mr. Hassan, marked as Exhibit 15, and testified that Mr. Hassan received general welfare assistance from the date of his initial application on January 3, 1992 (Exhibit 13) through to June 1992. Mr. Hassan completed a present condition report dated May 11, 1992 (Exhibit 14a), in which he confirmed that he had received no income of any kind for the period January 1992 to May 1992, and confirmed there was no change in his financial position since January 3, 1992. Ms. Bennett found no reference in the file to the Applicant having been injured in a car accident and in receipt of no-fault insurance benefits during the time period in question. On May 12, 1992, Mr. Hassan called to inform the caseworker that he intended to leave the province at the end of June. On May 22, 1992, the caseworker noted that the Applicant's file would be terminated on the basis that he was no longer living in the municipality (Exhibit 14a). The Applicant received no assistance benefits for July and part of August 1992.

The Applicant's general assistance benefits were reinstated after August 15, 1992 on the basis that he was unemployed and actively seeking employment. On January 15, 1993, following the first day of these proceedings, the welfare caseworker received a telephone message from the Applicant to inform her that he had stopped taking welfare in July and part of August 1992 because he was afraid he would be charged for not reporting income received while receiving general welfare assistance. This was the first reference to the Applicant's motor vehicle accident and his receipt of insurance benefits in the Applicant's general welfare assistance file.

Throughout these proceedings, Mr. Hassan's position has been that he was profitably employed with Jagsan Gas and Service, driving a cab, from January 1, 1992 to the date of the accident in February 1992 (Exhibits 6 and 33). However, Ms. Karen Bennett testified that Mr. Hassan submitted an Application for Assistance under the General Welfare Assistance Act dated January 3, 1992 in which he stated that he had no income, revenue or earnings from employment or any other source, had no work history in Canada, had previously been a student and was currently searching for work. The Application for General Welfare is accompanied by a statutory declaration of the Applicant that "All statements made in this application are true, and no information required to be given has been withheld or omitted" (Exhibit 13). Ms. Bennett testified that at the time Mr. Hassan signed the application, he would have been told that the information set out in his application should be true and any changes to his financial position must be communicated to his welfare caseworker.

Mr. Hassan strenuously opposed the admission of the testimony of his caseworker along with Exhibits 13, 14a and 14b, and 15 marked from the contents of his general welfare assistance file. He expressed shocked dismay that communications between himself and his caseworker, which he believed were of a confidential nature, were compellable by summons to this hearing. He stated that the documentation and file notes maintained by Metropolitan Toronto Social Services in respect of his application for general welfare assistance were false and that his caseworker Ms. Bennett had lied under oath. The Applicant repeatedly requested that little weight be given to the caseworker's testimony. I denied the Applicant's request for the exclusion of this evidence. I found the evidence of the caseworker to be relevant in respect of the substantive issues in dispute as well as pertinent to the question of the Applicant's credibility.

Following his accident in February 1992, the Applicant represented to his family doctor and to the Insurer that he was and continues to be substantially unable to carry out the tasks of his employment. During the same period, he represented to his welfare caseworker that he was actively searching for work and pursuing several job opportunities both in and outside the City of Toronto. At several points in the welfare assistance file, the caseworker noted that the Applicant was searching for work. In December 1992, the Applicant informed the caseworker of possible job offers in Windsor and Mississauga. His December 1992 welfare payment was "held to pay" pending confirmation of employment from the Applicant.

The Applicant claims that during the period January 20, 1992 to February 17, 1992 (Exhibit 5a), he was earning in excess of $600 per week above his expenses, driving a taxi cab for Mr. Jagbir Singh. However, Mr. Jagbir Singh testified that during that same time period, the Applicant represented to him that he was making insufficient income to cover his cab rental expenses. During that same time period the Applicant also informed his general welfare assistance caseworker that he had no job, and no income from any source to purchase bedding or to meet his daily living expenses of food and rent.

Mr. Jagbir Singh was summoned to give evidence at the hearing by both the Applicant (Exhibits 7 and 8) and the Insurer, to provide evidence concerning the Applicant's employment as a taxi driver with Jagsan Gas and Service. Applicant's counsel was given the choice of treating Mr. Singh as the Applicant's witness or cross-examining Mr. Singh following the Insurer's examination-in-chief. Applicant's counsel chose to call Mr. Singh as the Applicant's witness.

Mr. Singh brought along documents which he described as having been made by his assistant and reviewed by him, in the usual and ordinary course of running his taxi business. Excerpts from these documents were marked as Exhibits 12 and 37 and were referred to by Mr. Singh throughout his testimony. In these records, the Applicant is referred to by his first name "Said", rather than his last name "Hassan", which identifies another driver. I accept these records as a true reflection of Mr. Singh's cab business.

Mr. Singh's business records showed that the Applicant drove thirty-eight shifts for the cab company from the night shift (evening of January 1 to early morning January 2, 1992) to the night shift (evening of February 18 to early morning February 19, 1992). Mr. Singh testified that the posted rental rate on the cab for the night shift was $78, however the records show that Mr. Hassan rarely paid the full amount of the cab rental during the eight-week period he worked for Mr. Singh. Mr. Singh's records also show that during the last four weeks prior to the accident (January 20, 1992 to February 17, 1992), Mr. Hassan's contributions toward his cab rental averaged approximately $40.71 per shift. I accept the figures set out in Mr. Singh's business records as an accurate reflection of the cab rental paid by Mr. Hassan to Mr. Singh during the relevant period.

Mr. Singh recalled feeling sorry for Mr. Hassan. Mr. Hassan persuaded Mr. Singh that he was earning very little money driving cab and could not afford to pay the cab rental. On compassionate grounds, Mr. Singh allowed Mr. Hassan to pay as much of the cab rental as he could, on the shifts where he made money, and make up the balance of the rental payments on subsequent shifts. Mr. Singh explained that he granted Mr. Hassan this indulgence because it was difficult to find reliable cab drivers and Mr. Hassan seemed trustworthy, ambitious, and relatively new to the cab driving business. Mr. Singh hoped that over the long run, with experience, Mr. Hassan would become a reliable, profitable driver for his company. Mr. Singh testified that Mr. Hassan still owed the cab company money for cab rental when he stopped driving.

The Applicant's version of events differed from Mr. Singh's. The Applicant stated that he paid $50 per night for cab rental immediately after each shift. He stated that if he failed to pay the cab rental, he was not permitted to drive the cab the next shift (pages 91 to 93, questions 141 through to 148, January 14, 1993 transcript). In Mr. Hassan's view, the very fact that he was permitted to continue to drive the cab night after night was proof that he was living up to his cab rental arrangements and that he was earning money in excess of his expenses. However, Mr. Hassan admitted that there were occasions when he did not earn enough money to pay the cab rental for the shift (pages 92 and 93, question 148, January 14, 1993 transcript). The Applicant's own records (Exhibit 5a) confirm that Mr. Singh allowed him to drive the cab the next shift, despite the Applicant's failure to pay the cab rental. This evidence supports Mr. Singh's version of events.

The Applicant accused Mr. Singh of lying and charged that the business records, which Mr. Singh claimed were maintained by the cab company, were specifically created at the request of the Insurer. In an effort to refute the evidence of Mr. Singh, Mr. Hassan called his co-worker Mr. Suleiman-Jama Aye to testify. Mr. Aye generally drove the day shift for cab number 2817 in Mr. Jagbir Singh's taxi fleet, while Mr. Hassan generally drove the night shift for the same cab. Mr. Aye testified that the cab rental rate and the timing of the rental payment varied, depending upon how frequently the drivers took the car, whether the drivers drove on a daily or weekly basis, whether they drove the day or night shift, and the specific arrangement that each driver was able to negotiate with the cab company. Mr. Aye testified that he paid between $50 to $60 per shift for rental of the cab, which was less than the posted rate. Mr. Aye was not able to testify about the specific arrangements between the Applicant and Mr. Singh because "it was not his business". However, Mr. Aye noted that when new or inexperienced drivers first came to the company for work, they were sometimes able to negotiate a special deal for a short period.

Mr. Aye's evidence did not significantly contradict the evidence of Mr. Singh, and in many respects it supported that evidence. Where there is a conflict between the evidence and business records of the Applicant and those of Mr. Singh, I prefer the evidence and business records of Mr. Singh.

Inconsistencies are also found between the documents filed by the Applicant at the hearing and the documentation provided by the Applicant to the Insurer in support of his claim for weekly income benefits in the amount of $600. For example, the Applicant filed Exhibit 21, which was a summary of earnings for the period January 20, 1992 to February 17, 1992. The Applicant conceded that he had previously provided a similar document to the Insurer covering the identical time period, which was marked at the hearing as Exhibit 45. The two documents reflect different calculations in support of the claim for weekly income benefits in the amount of $600. The Applicant explained that after he provided the Insurer with Exhibit 45, he discovered several more taxi run sheets (included in Exhibits 5 b, c, d, and e) which were the basis for the new figures contained in Exhibit 21. However, the Insurer pointed out additional discrepancies in the amount of income from tips recorded by the Applicant in Exhibits 21 and 45. The Applicant's taxi run sheets do not record income earned from tips. The Applicant stated that when he prepared Exhibits 21 and 45, he simply estimated the amount of income he earned from tips. He expressed the view that it was entirely his choice whether he wished to estimate his tips higher in one document, lower in another, or exclude them altogether.

The Applicant filed his income tax return for the taxation year ending December 1991, as Exhibit 23. The tax return recorded income earned from driving a taxi cab in 1991 in the amount of $4,800.00 and recorded expenses amounting to $4,882.60. These expenses are listed on the tax return as follows:

Accounting, legal, collection, consulting..................

45.60

Automobile and truck expenses (not including for automobiles driven by self and/or partners)........................

2,800.00

Business tax, fees, licenses, dues....................................

93.00

Other expenses } propane................................

1,680.00

} car wash...............................

240.00

} parking..................................

24.00

Total expenses.................................................................

4,882.60

Excess of income over expenses..........................

(82.60)

The Applicant also filed a letter dated August 19, 1992 (Exhibit 33), written by the Applicant's former counsel to the Insurer, which purports to explain how the Applicant reduced his cab driving expenses from a loss position in 1991 to arrive at his present claim based upon a net income of $600 per week. The letter states:

A review of the documentation does in fact confirm that in 1991 Mr. Hassan was driving a cab at a loss, however, Mr. Hassan confirms to us that as of January of 1992 he started driving a cab for Jagsan Gas Service, a division of Fleet Oil Co. Ltd. Mr. Hassan indicates to us that as of January of 1992 he started paying rent of only $50.00 per day per vehicle where as prior to this he was paying $100.00 a day. In addition, Mr. Hassan indicates that as of January he was driving a vehicle using propane, a net saving of $25.00 per day. Therefore a total of $75.00 per day of [sic] $375.00 per week.

Counsel for the Insurer pointed out that the 1991 tax return referred to the use of propane fuel and therefore the proposed saving of $25 per day was illusory. The Applicant responded that the accountant who prepared his tax return had made an error.

The Applicant also complained that his accountant made an error when preparing the Applicant's original Goods and Services Tax Return for the quarterly reporting period of January 1992 to March 1992 (Exhibits 22 and 27). In his original G.S.T. return, the Applicant claimed "total taxable supplies" of $2,804 against "total taxable purchases" of $1,409. The Applicant testified that the "taxable purchases" related to the expenses of fuel and cab rental only. A copy of the G.S.T return was provided to the Insurer, by the Applicant's former counsel in May, 1992 (Exhibit 26). Upon receiving it, the Insurer noted that the G.S.T. paid was inconsistent with the amount of weekly income, in excess of expenses, claimed by the Applicant. The Applicant then prepared a Goods and Services Tax Adjustment (Exhibit 34), which increased his total taxable supplies from $2,804, as originally claimed on Exhibit 22, to $4,586. The figures on the adjusted G.S.T. Return covering a three-month period are still less than the summary of income and expenses prepared by the Applicant for this hearing (Exhibit 5a), which purports to show the Applicant's income and expenses for a four-week period only. The Applicant refuted the documentation prepared by his accountant, but failed to give the accountant's name or call him or her as a witness, to comment on the accountant's alleged errors.

I do not accept the Applicant's rationalization of the discrepancies found in his documentation. I conclude that the Applicant tailored the information he provided to his welfare caseworker, his employer, the income tax authorities, the Goods and Services tax authorities, and his Insurer, to suit his specific purposes.

Duration of weekly income benefits:

My assessment of Mr. Hassan's credibility is central to my determination of whether he continues to suffer a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of a cab driver. His claim is based upon his subjective experiences of pain and emotional distress rather than on a condition which is verifiable on the basis of objective data. The opinion of the doctors treating the Applicant is necessarily dependent upon the honesty and accuracy of the Applicant in reporting his symptoms. Throughout the relevant period, the Applicant falsely reported to his welfare caseworker that he was unemployed and without income from any source. He reported to his employer that he was earning insufficient income to pay his cab rental expenses. I am not satisfied that the Applicant was any more truthful or candid in reporting his medical condition to various doctors.

Dr. Hall examined the Applicant at the request of the Insurer and noted at page 4 of his medical report dated May 14, 1992 (Exhibit 49, at tab 3) that the Applicant showed a very restricted range of movement in the neck and spine upon specific examination and a more complete range of movement upon general observation. Dr. Hall observed:

The physical examination is really not particularly believable. He shows me a restriction of movement in his neck and back which is clearly not imposed upon him by pain or stiffness since he can be seen to move quite freely at other times. Whether he is deliberately deceiving me and is actually fraudulent is not possible for me to say.

The Applicant's weekly income benefits were terminated effective July 25, 1992. The Applicant claims to be entitled to benefits beyond that date. He relies upon several medical certificates and two reports prepared by Dr. Blazkova, his family doctor, in support of his claim (certificates of disability marked Exhibit 24 at Tabs 3 and 5, and Exhibit 29, medical reports marked Exhibits 30 and 40). The Applicant claimed that Exhibits 24 at Tabs 3 and 5 and Exhibit 29 were prepared by Dr. Blazkova's secretary at the Applicant's request. Exhibit 24 at Tab 3 indicates that the Applicant is able to return to work as of May 28, 1992. Both Exhibit 24 at Tab 5 and Exhibit 29 indicate that the Applicant is able to return to work as of July 27, 1992. Exhibit 29 appears to have been altered and the date of June 15, 1992 appears to have been inserted. Mr. Hassan alleged that Dr. Blazkova's secretary made errors when preparing these certificates, however neither Dr. Blazkova nor her secretary were called by the Applicant to explain the dates set out in the certificates of disability.

Dr. Blazkova's most recent medical report dated November 11, 1992 (Exhibit 40) makes the bald assertion that the Applicant is "totally disabled at the present time". The following symptoms are listed: headaches, insomnia, nightmares, panic attacks, and decreased libido. There is no analysis of the relationship between these symptoms and her opinion concerning disability. Furthermore, her clinical notes and records (Exhibit 4) show a different picture than the opinion stated in this report.

Dr. Blazkova's clinical notes record a continuing improvement in the Applicant's physical condition at entries dated April 28, May 8, June 18, July 20, and September 2, 1992. Her notes also make several references to the Applicant's possible return to work in entries dated May 19, July 13, and August 2, 1992. The nature of Mr. Hassan's complaints appear to shift from primarily physical symptoms such as neck, back and muscle pain, to include psychological problems such as depression, nightmares and inability to concentrate, following the unsuccessful mediation of his claim in late July and early August of 1992. Mr. Hassan chose not to call Dr. Blazkova to comment upon the onset and timing of his psychological symptoms.

In view of the Applicant's demonstrated tendency to tailor the information he provides to further his particular financial objectives, and in view of the various dates proposed for the Applicant's return to work set out in the three certificates of disability prepared by Dr. Blazkova's office, and her clinical notes and records, I am unable to accept Dr. Blazkova's opinion concerning the Applicant's disability expressed in her November 11, 1992 report (Exhibit 40), in the absence of clarification from her.

Mr. Hassan saw Dr. Joseph Fernando in respect of his psychological symptoms. Dr. Fernando prepared a report dated November 2, 1992 (Exhibit 39) in which he concluded:

From his history an [sic] presenting symptoms there is little doubt in my mind that Mr. Hassan is suffering a post-traumatic stress disorder caused by the 2 car accidents that he was involved in.

Dr. Fernando listed symptoms including anxiety, repetition of the incidents in dreams, depressive feelings and loss of libido. Once again, these symptoms are based upon the subjective descriptions of the Applicant. Dr. Fernando recommended "some form of psychotherapy", but expressed no opinion whether the Applicant's symptoms would prevent him from returning to work.

The Applicant had not produced the medical report of Dr. Fernando (Exhibit 39) to the Insurer when he sought to introduce it into evidence on the fifth day of testimony, approximately two months after the commencement of the arbitration hearing. The Insurer strenuously objected to its introduction on the basis of the provisions of the Dispute Resolution Practice Code. This report highlights the psychological aspect of the Applicant's claim. I allowed the Applicant to file this medical report, in view of the fact that he was no longer represented by counsel. However, the Insurer's concerns and the requirements of fairness were fully explained to the Applicant at that time and earlier in the proceedings (March 24, 1992 transcript at pages 37 to 39, 50 to 56 and 151 to 157).

Two months later, the Applicant once again sought to file two medical reports without having produced them to the Insurer. One of the reports was from Dr. Hans G. Arndt, psychiatrist, and the other from a Dr. Johnson. Once again, the Insurer objected to the introduction of these new medical reports. I denied the Applicant's request on the basis that the Insurer had no previous opportunity to review these reports nor to prepare its response, which may have included assessment and evaluation by an expert in the field of psychiatry. The Applicant was anxious to proceed and reluctant to delay the hearing to accommodate the Insurer's concerns. I upheld the Insurer's objection and did not enter the two further medical reports as exhibits to this proceeding.

The medical evidence submitted by the Insurer (Exhibit 49, Tabs 2, 3 and 7) anticipated the Applicant's return to work by mid-June 1992, at the latest. The report of Comprehensive Rehabilitation Associates, Inc. dated August 4, 1992 (Exhibit 49, Tab 7, pages 2 and 3) relayed that the Applicant had achieved the maximum benefit possible from his comprehensive, pro-active, physiotherapy program at Body Health and that he had made significant progress since commencing the program in June 1992. The report concluded that the Applicant should immediately attempt to return to his work as a cab driver.

The psychological aspects of the Applicant's claim were not specifically explored by the medical specialists who examined the Applicant at the Insurer's request. However, in his report dated April 7, 1992 (Exhibit 25, page 4), Dr. Lexier expressed some concern regarding the psychological aspect of the Applicant's injury as follows:

I do suspect however that it may be a long time before we can disabuse him of the illusion that he is permanently, totally disabled. There is a suspicion that he may go on to develop a chronic pain type behaviour and certainly, early psychological support and evaluation would be indicated.

Dr. Lexier supported the Applicant's return to work by mid to late June 1992.

On the totality of the evidence, I conclude that on a balance of probabilities, the Applicant has failed to establish that he continues to suffer a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of driving a cab beyond July 25, 1992, which is the date the Insurer terminated payment of weekly income benefits.

Quantum of weekly income benefits:

The Applicant is seeking weekly income benefits in the amount of $600 per week from February 25, 1992 forward (Exhibit 11, item 1). The Insurer paid weekly income benefits in the amount of $185.60 for the period February 25 to July 25, 1992.

Essentially, the Applicant has asked the Insurer to accept that, while losing money driving cab during the busy pre-Christmas months of November and December 1991 (Exhibits 23, 33 and 44), he earned in excess of $600 per week over expenses driving cab during the post-holiday period between January 20 to February 17, 1992 (Exhibit 5a). The profitable period of driving occurred while the Applicant was suffering the ill effects of the earlier car accident on January 11, 1992. Dr. Blazkova saw the Applicant on January 30, 1992 and noted "M.V.A. January 11, 1992. All body ache after accident" (Exhibit 4). Dr. Lexier recorded the following history from the Applicant in his report dated April 7, 1992 (Exhibit 49, Tab 2, page 2):

He then states that he was off work for approximately two weeks taking medication at the request of his family physician. He then returned to work in late January but was only working erratically between the first and second collision. He was then involved in a second collision on February 18, 1992.

In the absence of a credible explanation from the Applicant, corroboration from his employer or convincing documentation, the Insurer was unwilling to accept the Applicant's position.

Upon reviewing the evidence, and in light of my previous findings about the Applicant's credibility, I conclude that the Applicant has failed to establish income in excess of $600 per week during the four-week period relied upon. The inconsistencies in the Applicant's documentation and his unreliable reporting of his income in other situations make it difficult to place any reliance whatsoever on his testimony about his income.

I conclude that the appropriate weekly income figure is $185.60 per week.

The Applicant may have earned more than the $185.60 minimum. The Applicant submitted a copy of a Royal Bank deposit slip completed by him, which records a deposit of $1,850 into an account on February 20, 1992 (Exhibit 20). However, no bank book or other account record was produced to establish a more appropriate figure than the minimum $185.60. The Applicant has failed to meet the onus of proving income in excess of the minimum.

Supplementary medical and rehabilitation benefits:

and

Care benefits:

The Applicant is seeking payment of supplementary medical and rehabilitation benefits under section 6(1) of the No-Fault Benefits Schedule for transportation costs to and from physiotherapy and his family doctor's office, as well as certain prescription expenses totalling $979.20 (Exhibit 11). The Applicant provided taxi fare receipts which correspond to the appointment dates of his visits to physiotherapy and to doctors as well as prescription drug receipts (Exhibits 1, 2, 3 and 10).

The criteria that must be met before an insurer will be required to pay for goods and services under section 6(1) are articulated by Arbitrator Rotter in the arbitration decision of Richard Mark Plows and Jevco Insurance Company, Commission File Nos. A-000175 and A-000588 (upheld on appeal), as follows:

(1) it must be an expense resulting from the accident.

(2) it must be required because of the accident.

(3) a medical practitioner must, if the insurer so requires, provide a signed statement that the expense is necessary for the Insured's treatment or rehabilitation.

I find that the prescription expenses contained as part of Exhibit 10, meet these criteria. I order the reimbursement of outstanding expenses related to the cost of prescription drugs.

The Applicant relied upon the medical report of Dr. Blazkova dated November 11, 1992 (Exhibit 40) to establish the necessity of taking taxis for his medical rehabilitation treatments. Dr. Blazkova states "He also used taxis to get transportation due to his condition". There is no other statement in her clinical notes and medical records relating to the necessity of the Applicant taking taxis. The Applicant chose not to call his family doctor to establish the therapeutic link between taking taxis and his medical condition. I am unwilling to require payment of this expense by the Insurer in the absence of such evidence. The Insurer is entitled to repayment of taxi cab fares included in Exhibits 2, 3 and summarized in Exhibit 11, which were paid to the Applicant in error.

The Applicant is also seeking payment of $848.45 under section 7(1) of the No-Fault Benefits Schedule for grocery shopping services, house cleaning assistance and dry cleaning expenses while he was disabled (Exhibit 11). The Applicant provided signed receipts for a portion of the expenses claimed (Exhibit 10).

The case of Trinidad Chamale and Wellington Insurance Company, Commission File No. A-000849 (under appeal), considered a claim for housekeeping expenses. It was decided that such expenses fell squarely within the scope of section 6(1) of the No-Fault Benefits Schedule. Dr. Blazkova's report dated November 23, 1992 (Exhibit 40) noted "Said needed, home-making in months of February 1992-August 1992." Yet on July 13, 1992, her clinical notes and records (Exhibit 4) suggest that it would be best for Mr. Hassan to return to work.

The more extensive and detailed reports of two specialists brought in by the Insurer supported the Applicant's return to a full range of activities, including employment, by mid-June 1992. I award payment of outstanding home making, grocery shopping and dry cleaning expenses incurred by the Applicant prior to June 15, 1992, which is the period of disability accepted by these specialists. The Insurer is entitled to repayment of expenses incurred after June 15, 1992, summarized in Exhibit 11 and 10, which were paid to the Applicant in error.

The Applicant is also seeking reimbursement of $295 paid to interpreters for translation services provided to the Applicant during interviews with medical specialists retained by the Insurer and during mediation at the Ontario Insurance Commission (Exhibit 11). The Applicant provided written receipts in respect of these translation services (Exhibit 10).

The Insurer agreed to pay the Applicant's outstanding translation expenses incurred in the context of medical specialist appointments arranged by the Insurer. However, the Insurer disputed its responsibility for payment of translation expenses relating to the face-to-face mediation meeting held between the parties at the Ontario Insurance Commission. Section 282(11) of the Insurance Act provides that an arbitrator may award expenses incurred in respect of an arbitration proceeding, as prescribed by the regulations. There is no similar provision in the Insurance Act or its regulations pertaining to expenses incurred in respect of mediation at the Commission. The omission of such a provision must be given some significance in the overall legislative scheme. I conclude that the translation expense related to mediation is not recoverable from the Insurer as either an expense of the arbitration proceeding under section 282(11) of the Insurance Act or an expense under section 6 or 7 of the No-Fault Benefits Schedule.

Special award:

During the course of the hearing, the Applicant raised the issue of the payment of a special award by the Insurer under section 282(10) of the Insurance Act which states:

(10) If the arbitrator finds that an insurer has unreasonably withheld or delayed payments, the arbitrator, in addition to awarding the benefits and interest to which an insured person is entitled under the No-Fault Benefits Schedule, shall award a lump sum of up to 50 per cent of the amount to which the person was entitled at the time of the award together with interest on all amounts then owing to the insured (including unpaid interest) at the rate of 2 per cent per month, compounded monthly, from the time the benefits first became payable under the Schedule.

The Applicant claimed that the Insurer wrongfully terminated his intensive, pro-active, physiotherapy program at Body Health in September 1992 (Exhibit 46). The Applicant complained that he now attends a less satisfactory program, the cost of which is covered by the Ontario Health Insurance Plan.

The Insurer referred to a letter dated July 2, 1992 (Exhibit 49, Tab 5) from Body Health to the Insurer describing the program in which the Applicant was enrolled. The program was designed to return the Applicant to the highest level of function as soon as possible and was expected to run approximately 12 weeks. The Applicant began the program June 1, 1992 upon the recommendation of his family physician. The Insurer ceased further payments for the program as of August 31, 1992. The Applicant attended the program for a total of 132 weeks (Exhibit 1). Comprehensive Rehabilitation Associates Inc. reported the physiotherapist's opinion that Mr. Hassan had achieved the maximum benefit possible from the Body Health program (Exhibit 49, Tab 7, at pages 3 and 4). The Applicant had previously submitted certificates from his family physician stating that he was ready to return to work. The Applicant's remaining complaints relate primarily to psychological and emotional rather than to physical concerns. I conclude that the Insurer did not unreasonably withhold payment for the Applicant's intensive pro-active physiotherapy program.

The Applicant did not base his claim for payment of a special award on unreasonable delay. Rather, the Applicant accused the Insurer of harassing him by, among other things, employing the services of a private investigator, by conducting surveillance, by interfering in his private affairs by calling upon his welfare caseworker to testify, and by persuading his former employer to prepare false business records. I am satisfied that the Applicant's claims of harassment by the Insurer are without merit.

Applications for a new hearing before a new arbitrator:

During the course of the hearing, the Applicant made several motions for the termination of the present hearing and requested a new hearing before a new arbitrator.

On the morning of the third day of hearing (February 25, 1993), Mr. Hassan informed the Commission and counsel for the Insurer that his lawyer had unexpectedly withdrawn from the case. The Applicant indicated that he wished to be represented by counsel for the remainder of the hearing. The hearing was adjourned to March 22, 1993 to allow the Applicant to obtain new counsel. The adjournment inconvenienced several witnesses who had been called to testify on that day.

On March 18, 1993, the Ontario Insurance Commission initiated a telephone conference call among the parties and the arbitrator, to confirm that the parties were ready to proceed on March 22, 1993. An interpreter was not present during this telephone discussion. The Applicant informed the Commission that he intended to continue without counsel. He expressed the concern that his former counsel had not adequately represented his interests during the previous two days of hearing.

He sought to strike the evidence taken on those days and asked to begin the hearing over again.

Counsel for the Insurer strenuously objected to the Applicant's proposal. At the conclusion of the conference call, it was agreed that the evidence taken on January 14 and February 24, 1993 would stand. However, the Insurer consented to the Applicant re-opening his case to present any parts of his case or documents that may have been omitted. It was agreed that the witness Mr. Jagbir Singh would be recalled to permit the Applicant to pose further questions to him.

On March 19, 1993, the Applicant telephoned Mr. James G. Malcolm, Registrar/Executive Coordinator, Dispute Resolution Group, Ontario Insurance Commission. The Applicant reiterated his request to strike the evidence taken on the first two days of hearing. He also sought to obtain a new hearing before a new arbitrator. Mr. Malcolm referred these requests to me, as the presiding arbitrator.

On March 22, 1993, I heard the Applicant's motion for a new hearing before a new arbitrator. The Applicant alleged that the previous hearing had been unfair due to the conduct of his former counsel. Mr. Hassan was also concerned that the sudden withdrawal of his counsel and the resultant inconvenience to the witnesses and the Commission would prejudice his case. No other allegation of bias was maintained at that time. Mr. Hassan rejected the agreement reached during the telephone conversation of March 18, 1993 on the basis that no interpreter had been present and he misunderstood what was said.

I denied the Applicant's motion for a new hearing before a new arbitrator. I concluded that any prejudice perceived by the Applicant during the first two days of hearing, as the result of alleged omissions by his former counsel, could be remedied by permitting him to re-open his case from the beginning, and by recalling Mr. Singh for further questioning by the Applicant. I reassured the Applicant that the decision of his counsel to abruptly withdraw from the hearing did not affect my view in his case.

On March 22, 1993, the Applicant strenuously objected to the admission of the testimony and documents of his welfare caseworker Ms. Karen Bennett. I overruled the Applicant's objections and admitted the evidence. The March 22, 1993 proceedings extended to 7:45 p.m., at the specific request of the Applicant.

On March 24, 1993, the Applicant was given the opportunity to cross-examine his own witness, Mr. Jagbir Singh. The Applicant informed me that he had arranged for a further witness to attend the hearing that afternoon to give evidence on his behalf. The Applicant was given several opportunities to attempt to track down his errant witness (March 24, 1993 transcript of proceedings, pages 132 to 147). The witness was not located before the conclusion of the day's proceedings. The Applicant sought to introduce evidence concerning his discussions with a psychiatrist, Dr. Fernando and a report by Dr. Fernando. The Insurer objected to the admission of this evidence on the basis that the Insurer was unaware of Dr. Fernando's involvement and had not received a copy of Dr. Fernando's report. The report of Dr. Fernando was subsequently admitted into evidence and marked as Exhibit 39 on May 17, 1993.

At the conclusion of testimony on March 24, 1993, I urged both parties to remain behind, along with the interpreter, to canvass the possibility of settlement of the case. Following negotiations, the parties notified me that they were unable to reach a settlement.

By letter dated May 13, 1993, delivered to Ms. Elisabeth Sachs, Executive Director of Arbitrations, the Applicant made a further request for "the immediate suspension of the ongoing hearing of my case against Kingsway General Insurance and the scheduling of a new hearing under a new arbitrator." The Applicant repeated his request at the outset of the hearing on May 17, 1993 and filed a copy of his letter dated May 13, 1993 (Exhibit 38), setting out the basis for his position. The main grounds set out in the letter are summarized as follows:

March 24, 1993: Arbitrator refused the Applicant's request to adjourn the hearing indefinitely, following the parties' failure to settle the case.

Arbitrator refused to allow the Applicant's witnesses to testify.

March 22, 1993: Arbitrator refused the Applicant's request for a new hearing under a new arbitrator and failed to allow a recess after this refusal.

Arbitrator admitted testimony from the Applicant's welfare caseworker over the Applicant's objections.

Arbitrator sadistically extended the arbitration beyond its usual time, despite the Applicant's ill health,

January 14, 1993: Arbitrator refused Applicant's request to file medical report of Dr. Blazkova.

Arbitrator permitted Insurer to file medical reports without permitting the Applicant to question and dispute their admissibility.

Following extensive submissions by both parties, I once again denied the Applicant's motion and continued the hearing to its conclusion. The Applicant's allegations of bias are presently before the Director for her consideration.

Expenses:

The Applicant seeks a total of $2,174 in expenses incurred by him in connection with this arbitration (Exhibit 51).

An award for expenses may be made under section 282(11) of the Insurance Act, which provides as follows:

(11) The arbitrator may award to the insured person such expenses incurred in respect of an arbitration proceeding as may be prescribed in the regulations to the maximum set out in the regulations.

The prescribed expenses and amounts are set out in Schedule 1 of the Dispute Resolution Practice Code and in Ontario Regulation 664 (R.R.O. 1990), Dispute Resolution Expenses.

In the case of Ralph McCormick and Economical Mutual Insurance Company, Commission File No. A-000139, Arbitrator Naylor stated that the discretion to award expenses should be exercised in light of the objective of facilitating applicants' access to relatively inexpensive, speedy and informal adjudication of disputes. Arbitrator Naylor concluded that expenses should be awarded unless it is determined that the application was manifestly frivolous or vexatious, or that the applicant's conduct unreasonably prolonged the proceedings.

I decline to award the Applicant his expenses in this case because his conduct unreasonably prolonged the proceedings. Prior to the hearing, the Applicant was notified of the Insurer's intention to challenge his good character in connection with his receipt of welfare payments while working and while receiving no-fault insurance benefits. The Applicant testified, under oath, that he notified the social assistance authorities in March 1992, that he started receiving insurance benefits and as a result they stopped paying him social assistance sometime in the month of April 1992. This evidence was subsequently contradicted by the evidence of Mr. Hassan's welfare caseworker, Ms. Bennett. Had Mr. Hassan been truthful in his evidence-in-chief, the Insurer would not have required the attendance of the welfare caseworker, and time would have been saved.

Mr. Hassan made repeated attempts to strike his evidence concerning the receipt of social assistance as well as the testimony of the welfare caseworker from the record. These repeated motions took up extensive hearing time.

Mr. Hassan disputed the evidence of his own witness Mr. Singh and repudiated the examination-in-chief conducted by his own counsel. Mr. Hassan was permitted to recall Mr. Singh and to cross-examine him. Mr. Hassan quarrelled with the witness and lapsed into his submissions. The cross-examination was repetitious, meandering, fruitless and unnecessarily long.

Mr. Hassan made repeated assertions that he intended to call additional witnesses to support his case. Although he had served a summons upon Mr. Singh to ensure his attendance at the hearing, he was uncertain whether he had served a summons to appear upon any of his other witnesses. Mr. Hassan's witnesses did not appear when expected. A good deal of hearing time was wasted dealing with the failure of Mr. Hassan's witnesses to appear when required.

Order:

1. Mr. Hassan is not entitled to payment of weekly income benefits from July 26, 1992.

2. The correct amount of weekly income benefit payable to Mr. Hassan for the period preceding July 26, 1992 is $185.60.

3. Mr. Hassan is entitled to payment of outstanding supplementary medical and rehabilitation benefits for drug prescriptions contained in Exhibit 10. Mr. Hassan is not entitled to expenses related to taxi transportation to and from physiotherapy and doctors' appointments, set out in Exhibits 2 and 3. Mr. Hassan is entitled to payment of the outstanding cost of translation services provided during medical appointments, contained in Exhibit 10. Expenses for translation services used during mediation are not recoverable from the Insurer.

4. Mr. Hassan is entitled to payment of outstanding expenses related to the provision of grocery shopping and house cleaning assistance as well as dry cleaning expenses (Exhibit 10) incurred up to June 15, 1992, which is the approximate period of disability defined by the medical specialists retained by the Insurer.

5. Mr. Hassan is not entitled to a special award under section 282 of the Insurance Act.

6. Mr. Hassan is entitled to payment of interest on outstanding expenses referred to in paragraphs 3 and 4 above.

7. Kingsway General Insurance Company is entitled to a repayment of supplementary medical and rehabilitation expenses, plus interest, overpaid to the Applicant in error, in accordance with the provisions of section 27 of the No-Fault Benefits Schedule.

8. Mr. Hassan is not entitled to payment of his expenses incurred in respect of the arbitration.

November 10, 1993

Janice Mackintosh Arbitrator

Date

APPENDIX "A"

Documents before the arbitrator

Report of Mediator, dated August 4, 1992

Application for Appointment of Arbitrator, dated September 16, 1992

Response by Insurer, dated October 9, 1992

Pre-hearing letter of Arbitrator Palmer, dated November 30, 1992

List of Exhibits

Exhibit 1

Body Health Account History, dated October 28, 1992

Exhibit 2

Cab Receipts (4 pages) - related to physiotherapy appointments

Exhibit 3

Cab Receipts (8 on 1 page) - related to family doctor visits

Exhibit 4

Clinical notes and records of Dr. Blazkova (8 pages), from January 30, 1992 to January 8, 1993

Exhibit 5a

Summary of Run Sheets (1 page)

Exhibit 5b

Record Sheets for Diamond Taxi - run sheets (12 pages) - January 20 to 31, 1992

Exhibit 5c

Record Sheets for Diamond Taxi - run sheets (7 pages) - February 1 to 9, 1992

Exhibit 5d

Record Sheet for Diamond Taxi - run sheet (1 page) - February 10, 1992

Exhibit 5e

Record Sheets for Diamond Taxi - run sheets (6 pages) - February 11 to 17, 1992

Exhibit 6

Letter from M. Hamalengwa to Mr. Jagsan, dated September 29, 1992

Exhibit 7

Ontario Automobile Insurance Statement of Service, upon Jagbir Singh, dated January 13, 1993

Exhibit 8

Ontario Automobile Insurance Summons to a Witness, dated January 13, 1993 (1 page and attachments)

Exhibit 9

Handwritten Memo from Kingsway General Insurance Company to Said Hassan, dated July 13, 1992

Exhibit 10

Receipts for various items (10 pages)

Exhibit 11

Summary of Benefits claimed and expenses incurred, 1992-1993

Exhibit 12

Mr. J. Singh's business records - Cab #2817 December 1991 to March 1992 (4 pages)

Exhibit 13

Copy of Application for Social Assistance to Metro Toronto, dated January 3, 1992 (2 pages)

Exhibit 14a

Copy of Present Condition Report, dated May 11, 1992 (2 pages)

Exhibit 14b

Copy of Present Condition Report and attached file notes dated May 11, 1992 (continued) (2 pages)

Exhibit 15

Computer printout of General Welfare Assistance Payment History Report (3 pages)

Exhibit 16

Copy of fax from Howard Hayes, private investigator

Exhibit 17

Copy of Assignment form, dated January 20, 1993

Exhibit 18

Letter from Kingsway General Insurance Company to Mr. Said Hassan, dated February 27, 1992

Exhibit 19

Notice of Assessment from Revenue Canada for Taxation Year 1990

Exhibit 20

Copy of deposit slip for $1,850 - Royal Bank, 99 Bank St. Branch, dated February 20, 1992 (2 pages)

Exhibit 21

Handwritten Summary of Earnings, prepared by S. Hassan, given to Carol Thurlow on March 2, 1992

Exhibit 22

Original Goods and Services Tax Return for period January 1, 1992 to March 31, 1992

Exhibit 23

Copy of Income Tax Return for Taxation Year 1991 submitted to Insurer (17 pages)

Exhibit 24

Tab 3 - Certificate of Disability from Dr. Blazkova, dated May 28, 1992 - Tab 5 - Certificate of Disability from Dr. Blazkova, dated July 27, 1992

Exhibit 25

Tab 1 - Report of Dr. Lexier, dated April 7, 1992 (5 pages)

Exhibit 26

Fax from the office of Mr. Aaron Lang, Barrister & Solicitor, dated May 11, 1992

Exhibit 27

Letter from Revenue Canada to Mr. Hassan, concerning G.S.T., dated April 23, 1992

Exhibit 28

Letter from Kingsway General Insurance Company to Mr. Hassan, dated July 3, 1992

Exhibit 29

Original Certificate of Disability from Dr. Blazkova, dated July 27, 1992, for period June 15, 1992 to July 27, 1992

Exhibit 30

Form 4 Medical or Psychological Report of Dr. Blazkova, dated August 18, 1992

Exhibit 31

Assessment of Claim by Insurer, dated July 28, 1992

Exhibit 32

Notice of Assessment from Revenue Canada for Taxation Year 1991

Exhibit 33

Letter from Longley/Vickar, Barrister & Solicitor, to Kingsway General Insurance, dated August 19, 1992

Exhibit 34

GST Receipt and Goods & Services Tax adjustment, dated September 1, 1992

Exhibit 35

Letter from Kingsway General Insurance to Longley/Vickar, Barristers & Solicitors, dated September 1, 1992

Exhibit 36

Runsheet on Arrow Sunnyside Taxi Dispatch used in J. Singh's office

Exhibit 37

Copy of first draft receipts record for period February 9 to February 15, 1992 (7 pages) - from J. Singh's business records

Exhibit 38

Letter from Mr. Hassan to Ontario Insurance Commission, dated May 13, 1993, setting out request for new hearing with new arbitrator (2 pages)

Exhibit 39

Letter from Dr. J. Fernando, dated November 2, 1992

Exhibit 40

Letter from Dr. Blazkova, dated November 23, 1992

Exhibit 41

Copies of 4 photographs of Mr. Hassan, taken May 14, 1992

Exhibit 42

Letter from Mr. R.A. Robinson to Mr. Hamalengwa, dated December 4, 1992

Exhibit 43

Letter from Mr. R.A. Robinson to Mr. Hamalengwa, dated January 6, 1993

Exhibit 44

Letter re Applicant's employment with Diamond Taxi, by Tahir Salah Abdi

Exhibit 45

Summary of earnings, prepared by Mr. Hassan, January 20, 1992 to February 17, 1992

Exhibit 46

Letter from Kingsway General Insurance, dated September 1, 1992, to Body Health

Exhibit 47

10 cheque carbons from Kingsway General Insurance, to Mr. Hassan, for period February 25, 1992 to July 25, 1992

Exhibit 48

Letter from K. Patrick McCarthy of Quest Investigation Ltd., to Kingsway General Insurance, dated February 23, 1993

Exhibit 49

Medical brief of the Insurer, filed with 7 tabs

Exhibit 50

Article re Dr. Michael Hall contained in Canadian Insurance Agent & Broker, May 1992

Exhibit 51

Letter dated June 11, 1993, setting out arbitration expenses and attached invoices

Exhibit 52

Taxi Fare receipts related to expenses set out in June 11, 1993 letter

List of Witnesses

Said Mohmed Hassan

• applicant

Jagbir Singh

• applicant's employer

Sandy Thomas

• assistant to Mr. Robinson

Karen Bennett

• social worker

Carol Thurlow

• Kingsway General Insurance

Suleiman-Jama Aye

• co-worker