Neutral Citation: 1994 ONICDRG 101
File No. A-006494
ONTARIO INSURANCE COMMISSION
BETWEEN:
LUKE OFFEH
Applicant
and
ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY OF CANADA
Insurer
DECISION ON PRELIMINARY ISSUE
Issues:
The Applicant, Luke Offeh, was a passenger in a motor vehicle which was involved in an accident on January 20, 1991. Allstate Insurance Company of Canada ("Allstate") was the insurer of the motor vehicle. Mr. Offeh applied for statutory accident benefits from Allstate, payable under Ontario Regulation 6721, but failed to submit a completed application for statutory accident benefits within two years of the accident. Allstate refused to honour Mr. Offeh's claim because of the delay.
Following the denial of his claim for accident benefits, Mr. Offeh applied for mediation. He claimed both weekly benefits and supplementary medical and rehabilitation benefits under the Schedule. Mediation failed. Mr. Offeh then applied for the appointment of an arbitrator to determine the issues in dispute. Allstate moved to have the arbitration dismissed on the basis that Mr. Offeh had not complied with the two year time limit in the Insurance Act and the Schedule.
A hearing was held to determine the following preliminary issue:
Does Mr. Offeh's failure to submit an application for statutory accident benefits within two years of the accident invalidate his claim and prevent him from referring any matter in respect of statutory accident benefits to arbitration?
Mr. Offeh also claimed his expenses in respect of the hearing.
Result:
Mr. Offeh cannot proceed to arbitration.
Mr. Offeh is entitled to his expenses incurred in respect of the hearing.
Hearing:
The hearing was held in North York, Ontario, on August 12, 1994, before me, Shemin Manji, arbitrator.
Present at the Hearing:
Applicant: Luke Offeh
Applicant's Representative: Ian A. Little Barrister and Solicitor
Insurer's Representative: James Flaherty Barrister and Solicitor
Insurer's Officer: Brad Barber Allstate Insurance Company of Canada
Witnesses: Luke Offeh Anh Kuan Mai
Proceedings were recorded by Ms. Sandy Stephens.
Exhibits introduced into evidence and other documents on the record are listed in Appendix A to the decision. Each party filed a factum. Authorities filed by Allstate are listed in Appendix B.
Reasons for Decision:
Mr. Offeh was involved in a motor vehicle accident on January 20, 1991. He submitted his Application for Statutory Accident Benefits respecting the accident and the resulting loss to Allstate after January 25, 1993. Allstate refused to honour Mr. Offeh's claim for benefits on the basis that he failed to abide by section 22 of the Schedule. Section 22 provides as follows:
22.-(1) The insured person or the person otherwise entitled to make a claim shall,
(a) give initial notice of a claim to the insurer, in writing, within thirty days from the date of the accident or as soon as practicable thereafter; and
(b) furnish to the insurer within ninety days of the giving of the notice under clause (a) a completed application for statutory accident benefits respecting the accident and the resulting loss.
(2) A failure to comply with a time limit set out in subsection (1) does not invalidate a claim if the claimant has a reasonable excuse and so long as there is compliance within two years of the accident. [emphasis added]
Mr. Offeh applied for mediation. At mediation, Allstate questioned the Ontario Insurance Commission's jurisdiction to mediate the dispute in light of section 25 of the Schedule. Section 25 provides as follows:
- No person may commence a mediation proceeding under section 280 of the Insurance Act in respect of benefits under this Schedule unless the requirements of section 22 have been satisfied and the insured person has made himself or herself reasonably available for any examination required under section 23. [emphasis added]
Mediation failed. Mr. Offeh then applied for the appointment of an arbitrator. Allstate moved to have the arbitration dismissed on the basis that Mr. Offeh's failure to comply with section 22 precluded him from referring any matter in respect of statutory accident benefits arising out of the accident of January 20, 1991 to arbitration.
Mr. Offeh contends that he is not precluded from referring the matter in respect of statutory accident benefits to arbitration for the following reasons:
(A) Allstate, by words or conduct before the filing of the Application for Statutory Accident Benefits, is estopped from raising the time limit under section 22 of the Schedule as a defence to the claim;
(B) Allstate, by words or conduct after the filing of the Application for Statutory Accident Benefits, has waived Mr. Offeh's failure to comply with section 22 of the Schedule; and
(C) An arbitrator has discretion to extend or suspend temporarily the time limit in section 22 of the Schedule, and I should exercise my discretion to extend or suspend the time in the circumstances of this case.
I will consider each of these grounds in turn.
A. Is Allstate estopped from asserting non-compliance with section 22?:
1. Facts:
Conduct of Allstate before receiving the Application for Benefits:
Mr. Offeh and Ms. Anh Kuan Mai, the witness for Allstate, gave conflicting evidence about who, when and what was said following the accident on January 20, 1991.
Mr. Offeh testified that the initial contact took place three days following the accident. He received a telephone call from Allstate's casualty claims representative, Ms. Mai. Mr. Offeh testified that he told Ms. Mai that he was unable to perform his regular activities as a result of the accident, and had seen a doctor the day after the accident. He claims Ms. Mai asked him if he had lost a part of his body in the accident. Mr. Offeh testified that when he informed her that he had not, Ms. Mai advised him that he was not entitled to any benefits.
Mr. Offeh testified that he had recently arrived in the country at the time he spoke to Ms. Mai. He testified that Ms. Mai did not explain statutory accident benefits to him. He testified that he relied on what Ms. Mai told him, i.e., that he was not entitled to any benefits. Therefore, he took no action, until 22 months later when he discovered, through a friend, that he could make a claim for statutory accident benefits.
Allstate filed as evidence its notes (claim diary notes) concerning contacts between Mr. Offeh and Allstate's representatives following the accident. These notes state that the first contact between the parties took place on February 4, 1991, when Mr. Offeh called Allstate. Mr. Offeh stated that he had been in an accident and suffered injuries to his neck and back. He advised that he was unemployed and had recently arrived in Canada as a refugee. He asked to speak to a claims representative about his injuries.
The notes indicate that Mr. Offeh's file was transferred to Ms. Mai.
Ms. Mai testified that she had no independent recollection of any conversation with Mr. Offeh. However, she testified that in the course of her normal duties, she keeps contemporaneous notes of her contacts.
Based on her notes, Ms. Mai testified as follows: The only time she spoke to Mr. Offeh was on February 7, 1991. She tried to call Mr. Offeh on February 4, 1991, when she received the file, but was unable to reach him.
She received a call from Mr. Offeh on February 7, 1991. During the telephone conversation, she asked about his disability. He stated that he was able to perform his everyday activities, but found that his back hurt if he overdid it. Mr. Offeh also advised her that he had not seen a doctor. He stated that he wanted to claim for pain and suffering. Ms. Mai testified that she advised Mr. Offeh that he could not make a claim for pain and suffering, but explained statutory accident benefits to him. She advised him that her insured (the owner of the motor vehicle in which Mr. Offeh was a passenger) was not at fault in the accident. Ms. Mai testified that Mr. Offeh stated that he knew that her insured was not at fault, but he wished to make a claim for his back pain against the party that caused the accident.
In determining when the initial contact(s) took place between Mr. Offeh and Allstate, who initiated the contact(s) and what was said, I prefer the notes which were prepared contemporaneously by Ms. Mai over Mr. Offeh's recollections of conversations which occurred over three and a half years ago. Ms. Mai's notes indicate that she informed Mr. Offeh that he had no claim against Allstate for pain and suffering. I accept Mr. Offeh's evidence that he believed he had no claim after speaking to Ms. Mai. I also accept Mr. Offeh's evidence that he did not take steps to protect his interests earlier because he believed that he had no claim.
Following Mr. Offeh's telephone conversation with Ms. Mai, there was no further contact between Mr. Offeh and Allstate until after January 25, 1993 (two years after the accident).
Twenty-two months after the accident, Mr. Offeh discovered that he might have the right to make a claim for statutory accident benefits against Allstate. On December 16, 1992, he retained solicitors to make a claim on his behalf and to take care of any legal problems in respect of the claim.
On the same day, Mr. Offeh was provided with a package of forms by his solicitors, including a Form 4 Medical Report form to be completed by a medical practitioner.
Mr. Offeh delivered the completed Form 4 Medical Report, signed by his medical practitioner, Dr. Ajay Issar, to his solicitors' office before December 25, 1992. The completed Form 4 Medical Report was dated December 19, 1992.
Mr. Offeh attended at his solicitors' office a month later to sign his Application for Statutory Accident Benefits. The completed Application for Statutory Accident Benefits is dated January 25, 1993.
Mr. Offeh's solicitors submitted Mr. Offeh's Application for Statutory Accident Benefits, dated January 25, 1993, to Allstate, along with the Form 4 Medical Report by Dr. Issar, dated December 19, 1992, annexed. The application and Form 4 Medical Report were submitted under cover of a letter, dated January 27, 1993, to Allstate. Waivers signed by Mr. Offeh authorizing the release of employment and medical information to Allstate were also enclosed with the letter.
2. Findings:
Mr. Offeh submitted that he relied to his detriment on the misrepresentation made to him by Ms. Mai, shortly after the accident. Mr. Offeh submitted that whatever Ms. Mai thought she was communicating to him, he got the impression that he had no right to make a claim. Accordingly, Mr. Offeh did not ascertain that he should consult a lawyer until December 1992.
Mr. Offeh submitted that reasonable allowance must be made when solicitors are consulted "late", in order for the solicitors to ascertain the status of any application for benefits, obtain the necessary information, arrange for the completion of the necessary medical form and submit the initial application. It is for these "logistical reasons" that an initial Application for Benefits is generally required within 90 days of an accident and not within 30 days. Mr. Offeh submitted that, unlike the situation in Emilia Zeppieri and Royal Insurance Company of Canada, February 17, 1994, OIC File No. A-005237, where the applicant retained a law firm to act on her behalf a year before the expiry of the limitation period, Mr. Offeh's solicitors, in this case, had insufficient time to determine that an application had to be submitted and could be submitted within the time available.
Mr. Offeh also submitted that Allstate had an obligation, after learning that he had been injured in the accident, to furnish him with forms to make a claim for statutory accident benefits. Allstate failed to do this.
Mr. Offeh submitted that, in these circumstances, Allstate was estopped from relying on the two year time limit in the Schedule. Mr. Offeh relied on the Zeppieri case, for the proposition that an insurer may be estopped from raising a limitation period against an applicant, in circumstances where the applicant reasonably relies on the insurer's conduct, to the applicant's detriment.
In respect of the representation made by Ms. Mai to Mr. Offeh in their telephone conversation on February 7, 1991, to the effect that Mr. Offeh had no claim, I am not satisfied that the representation gives rise to estoppel. "Estoppel" has been defined as follows:
...where one person ('the representor') has made a representation to another person ('the representee') in words, or by acts and conduct, or (being under a duty to the representee to speak or act) by silence or inaction, with the intention (actual or presumptive), and with the result, of inducing the representee on the faith of such representation to alter his position to his detriment, the representor, in any litigation which may afterwards take place between him and the representee, is estopped, as against the representee, from making, or attempting to establish by evidence, any averment substantially at variance with his former representation, if the representee at the proper time, and in the proper manner, objects thereto. [emphasis added] [Spencer Bower on the Law Relating to Estoppel by Representation, 3rd ed. by Turner (London, Butterworths, 1977), p. 9 quoted in Pannenbecker v. Dominion of Canada General Ins. Co. (1977), 1977 CanLII 667 (AB SCTD), 76 D.L.R. (3d) 132 at pp. 139-40 (Alta. S.C.T.D.), rev. on other grounds 1978 CanLII 1952 (AB SCAD), 93 D.L.R. (3d) 450 (S.C. App. Div.).]
This is not a case where Ms. Mai made a representation to the effect that the requirements in section 22 of the Schedule need not be met and now is making, or attempting to establish by evidence, that section 22 applies. Therefore, the argument of estoppel cannot be invoked or applied.
In any event, the evidence is that Ms. Mai explained statutory accident benefits to Mr. Offeh. Further, I find that Mr. Offeh's failure to comply within the two year time limit in section 22 of the Schedule resulted from the failure of his solicitors to submit the Application for Statutory Accident Benefits, and not from Ms. Mai's representation. Mr. Offeh sought legal advice and retained solicitors before the two year time limit expired. He relied on his solicitors, and it was their responsibility to ensure that his rights under the legislation were adequately protected.
In respect of Allstate's obligation to furnish Mr. Offeh with forms to make a claim for statutory accident benefits, after learning that he had been injured in the accident, I note that section 135(1) of the Insurance Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.I.8, as amended (the "Act"), requires an insurer:
...immediately upon receipt of a request, and in any event not later than sixty days after receipt of notice of loss, shall furnish to the insured or person to whom the insurance money is payable forms upon which to make the proof of loss required under the contract.
Based on the above-noted definition of estoppel, Allstate would be estopped, in my view, from asserting Mr. Offeh's failure to comply with the two year time limit in section 22 of the Schedule, if this resulted from a failure of Allstate to fulfil its obligations under the legislation. However, I make no finding whether section 135 of the Act is applicable in this context. The evidence is that it was not Allstate's failure to furnish Mr. Offeh with forms that was the cause of Mr. Offeh's failure to comply with the two year time limit in section 22 of the Schedule. He had obtained the Application for Accident Benefits forms and they were at least in part completed before the two year expiry date.
Accordingly, I find that Allstate is not estopped from asserting non-compliance with section 22 of the Schedule as a defence to the claim.
B. Has Allstate waived Mr. Offeh's failure to comply with section 22?:
1. Facts:
Conduct of Allstate after receiving the Application for Benefits
Allstate acknowledged receipt of the Application for Statutory Accident Benefits in a letter to Mr. Offeh's solicitors, dated March 15, 1993. In that letter, Allstate advised that it was unable to consider payment of accident benefits at the time. It advised that the application had been received two years post-accident and it had no way of knowing if any of Mr. Offeh's alleged difficulties were a result of the accident. Allstate asked for an explanation of the delay in forwarding the application. It also asked for further details of Mr. Offeh's claim. Allstate advised that it would require a meeting between Allstate and Mr. Offeh in which Mr. Offeh could provide a signed statement detailing the nature of his disability and medical treatment. Upon receipt of this information, Allstate would be in a better position to give consideration to Mr. Offeh's claim.
An Ontario Automobile Insurance Assessment of Claim by Insurer form, dated March 15, 1993, was also forwarded to Mr. Offeh's solicitors. The form stated that Allstate was denying Mr. Offeh's entire claim. The reason given for the denial was the same as that set out in Allstate's letter of the same date. In addition, Allstate made reference to section 2.52(b) of the Ontario Automobile Policy (section 22(1)(b) of the Schedule) as the reason for denial.
At the same time, Allstate sent a letter to Dr. Issar. In its letter, dated March 15, 1993, Allstate asked Dr. Issar for specific information regarding Mr. Offeh's medical complaints and treatment, and for an opinion whether at any time Mr. Offeh suffered a substantial inability to perform his regular daily activities. A waiver, signed by Mr. Offeh, authorizing Dr. Issar to release the information requested by Allstate was enclosed with the letter.
Mr. Offeh attended at a meeting with a representative from Allstate, at his solicitors' office on March 23, 1993. At the meeting, Mr. Offeh provided Allstate with a signed statement detailing the nature of his injury and disability, and his medical treatment.
No non-waiver agreement was entered into, at any time, by the parties in respect of Mr. Offeh's claim for statutory accident benefits.
Allstate advised Mr. Offeh's solicitors, by way of a letter dated July 12, 1993, that it would not honour Mr. Offeh's claim, because he had failed to abide by the notice provisions in the automobile policy for claims for accident benefits. Allstate advised that it felt that the delay had severely prejudiced its rights under the policy to investigate Mr. Offeh's claim. An Ontario Automobile Insurance Assessment of Claim form, dated July 12, 1993, confirming that Allstate was denying the entire claim was enclosed with the letter.
2. Findings
Mr. Offeh submitted that Allstate waived the applicability of the two year time limit by its conduct after it received his Application for Statutory Accident Benefits. There was no clear and unequivocal reliance by Allstate on the time limit, until July 1993. In fact, Allstate accepted and utilized that application, and in particular the medical waiver, in order to obtain information to consider the merits of Mr. Offeh's claims for benefits.
Mr. Offeh submitted that by its correspondence (to his solicitors and doctor) and its conduct (obtaining a signed statement from Mr. Offeh) after it received his Application for Statutory Accident Benefits, Allstate effectively communicated to Mr. Offeh that the two year time limit would not be relied on. Further, no non-waiver agreement was signed by the parties making it clear that Allstate was not waiving its intention to rely on the time limit.
Mr. Offeh submitted that both he and Dr. Issar relied on and were prejudiced as a result of Allstate's words and conduct, after it received Mr. Offeh's Application for Statutory Accident Benefits. Allstate refused to pay Dr. Issar for the medical report that it requested in its letter to him dated March 15, 1993. Mr. Offeh continued to perform his obligations under the policy, i.e., he provided Allstate with a signed statement on March 23, 1993. On the other hand, Allstate was not prejudiced by the failure of Mr. Offeh to comply with the time limit.
"Waiver” has been defined as arising:
...where one party to a contract, with full knowledge that his obligation under the contract has not become operative by reason of the failure of the other party to comply with a condition of the contract, intentionally relinquishes his right to treat the contract or obligation as at an end but rather treats the contract or obligation as subsisting. It involves knowledge and consent and the acts or conduct of the person alleged to have so elected, and thereby waived that right, must be viewed objectively and must be unequivocal. [Per Mr. Justice Prowse of the Alberta Court of Appeal in Mitchell and Jewell Limited v. Canadian Pacific Express Company (1974) 1974 ALTASCAD 18, 3 W.W.R. 259 at p. 270]
The evidence is that as of March 15, 1993, Allstate was aware that Mr. Offeh had not met the requirements of section 22 of the Schedule. The evidence also is that Allstate denied Mr. Offeh's claim on March 15, 1993. However, at the same time, Allstate advised Mr. Offeh's solicitors that it would give further consideration to the claim after it received certain information providing details of Mr. Offeh's claim. After receiving some further information, Allstate determined that Mr. Offeh's failure to abide by section 22 had "...severely prejudiced (its) rights under the automobile policy to investigate (his) claim." Accordingly, it advised Mr. Offeh's solicitors, in July 1993, that it would not honour Mr. Offeh's claim.
In my view, Allstate's decision to give further consideration to the claim after it received more information, and its subsequent actions, including seeking medical information from Dr. Issar, do not indicate that it relinquished its right to rely on section 22 of the Schedule. These actions only indicate that, after Allstate received the information, it might reconsider its initial decision to deny the claim based on section 22 of the Schedule.
The absence of a non-waiver agreement, in the circumstances of this case, does not indicate Allstate's intention to relinquish or waive its right to rely on section 22 of the Schedule.
I find that Allstate did not waive the application of the two year limit in section 22 of the Schedule after it received the Application for Statutory Accident Benefits,
C. Is there a discretion to extend or suspend temporarily the time limit in section 22?
Section 22 of the Schedule sets out the conditions precedent to the insurer's obligation to pay statutory accident benefits. The purpose of the conditions set out in section 22 appear to be two-fold: (a) to permit an insurer to investigate the merits of a claim while the facts are still fresh, including obtaining current medical opinion(s) and the names of witnesses who later may not be found; and (b) the speedy adjustment and payment of a claim.
One of the conditions precedent set out in section 22 is that the person entitled to make a claim is required to furnish to the insurer, within ninety days of the giving of the initial notice of claim, a completed application for statutory accident benefits respecting the accident and the resulting loss.
The section allows for some flexibility where an insured has not complied with this condition. The claim will be protected if the insured person or the person otherwise entitled to make a claim has a "reasonable excuse". However, the section imposes a limit to this flexibility, and compliance is required within two years of the accident.
Mr. Offeh submitted that the time limit in section 22 of the Schedule should not have started to run until he discovered that he had a right to make a claim. Mr. Offeh relied on the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in M.(K) v. M.(H) 1992 CanLII 31 (SCC), [1992] 3 S.C.R. 6, in support of his position. In M.(K) v. M.(H), the Supreme Court of Canada held that an action for damages arising from incest, although subject to limitations legislation, did not accrue until the plaintiff was reasonably capable of discovering the wrongful nature of the defendant's acts and the relationship between these acts and the plaintiff's injuries. The Supreme Court of Canada gave specific and detailed reasons why it applied the reasonable discoverability principle in the context of an action for damages arising from incest. I am not satisfied that these reasons are applicable in the context of this case.
Further, I have not been directed to any provision in the Act or the Schedule which would confer on me the discretion to extend or suspend temporarily the time limit set out in section 22 of the Schedule where the person entitled to make a claim has not furnished the insurer with a completed application for statutory accident benefits within two years of the accident.
Mr. Offeh submitted that I had authority to extend or suspend the two year time limit set out in section 22 of the Schedule under the Dispute Resolution Practice Code. However, the provisions of the Dispute Resolution Practice Code apply only to time limits set out in the Code, not the Schedule.
Allstate included in its Book of Authorities the decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal in National Juice Company v. Dominion Insurance, (1978) 1977 CanLII 1375 (ON CA), 18 O.R.(2d) 10. This decision raises the question of whether section 129 of the Act (the relief from forfeiture section) is available to relieve a person entitled to make a claim from the failure to furnish to the insurer a completed application for statutory accident benefits within two years of the accident (as distinct from a failure to bring an action or commence an arbitration within the statutory limitation period). However, in my view, even if this section is available, it gives only the court, not an arbitrator, power to relieve against imperfect compliance.
In the circumstances of this case, I find no basis whereby Mr. Offeh is entitled to relief. Accordingly, Mr. Offeh's failure to submit an application for statutory accident benefits within two years of the accident, in accordance with the requirements of section 22 of the Schedule, invalidates his claim.
Expenses:
Mr. Offeh sought an award of the expenses he has incurred in this hearing. An award for expenses may be made under section 282(11) of the Act, which provides as follows:
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.
Allstate did not question my authority to award Mr. Offeh the expenses that he has incurred in respect of this hearing. However, it submitted that I should decline to exercise my discretion in this case. Allstate referred to the decision in Nazrur Rahman and Co-operators General Insurance Company, December 21, 1993, OIC File No. A-000854, in support of this submission. In Rahman, Arbitrator K. Julaine Palmer declined to exercise her discretion in favour of the applicant because the applicant in that case had not given any explanation for the delay of more than two years in submitting the application for arbitration. In this case, Mr. Offeh raised bona fide issues in respect of his rights under the Act and Schedule. I, therefore, exercise my discretion under section 282(11-) of the Act to award Mr. Offeh the expenses he has incurred in respect of this hearing, as prescribed in Ontario Regulation 664 (R.R.O. 1990), and Schedule 1 of the Dispute Resolution Practice Code. I remain seized of this matter in the event that there is a dispute in regards to the amount of expenses claimed.
Order.
Mr. Offeh's failure to submit an application for statutory accident benefits within two years of the accident invalidates his claim and prevents him from referring any matter in respect of statutory accident benefits to arbitration.
Mr. Offeh is entitled to his expenses incurred in respect to this hearing.
October 25, 1994
Shemin Manji Arbitrator
Date
APPENDIX A - THE RECORD
The following documents were introduced into evidence:
Exhibit 1 Documents Brief on Behalf of The Insurer
Tab 1 Claim diary notes from Allstate's file concerning contacts between Mr. Offeh and the Insurer's claims adjuster after the accident (entries for February 4 and 7, 1991)
Tab 2 Claim diary notes from Allstate's file concerning contact with Mr. Offeh's solicitors' office (February 24, 1993)
Tab 3 Handwritten claim diary notes from Allstate's file, dated March 9, 1993 (two pages)
Tab 4 Letter to Allstate from Mr. Offeh's solicitors, Lofranco & Sabetti, dated January 27, 1993
Tab 5 Facsimile cover sheet to Allstate from Mr. Offeh's solicitors, Lofranco & Sabetti, dated February 24, 1993
Tab 6 Application for Accident Benefits, dated January 25, 1993, with Form 4 medical report by Dr. A. Issar, dated December 19, 1992 annexed
Tab 7 Letter to Mr. Offeh's solicitors, Lofranco & Sabetti, from Allstate, dated March 15, 1993 and Assessment of Claim by Insurer, dated March 15, 1993
Tab 8 Statement by Mr. Offeh, dated March 23, 1993
Tab 9 Letter to Mr. Offeh's solicitors, Lofranco & Sabetti, from Allstate, dated July 12, 1993, enclosing Assessment of Claim by Insurer, dated July 12, 1993
Tab 10 Application for Appointment of a Mediator, dated September 8, 1993
Tab 11 Report of Mediator, dated November 18, 1993
Tab 12 Application for Appointment of an Arbitrator, dated December 6, 1993
Tab 13 Response by Insurer, dated February 7, 1994
Tab 14 Pre-hearing discussion letter to the parties from the Ontario Insurance Commission, dated April 19, 1994
Exhibit 2 Documents brief on Behalf of The Applicant (Luke Offeh)
Tab 1 Letter to Mr. Offeh's solicitors, Lofranco & Sabetti, from Allstate, dated March 15, 1993
Tab 2 Letter to Dr. A. Issar from Allstate, dated March 15, 1993
Tab 3 Letter to Dr. A. Issar from Allstate, dated May 12, 1993
Other documents on the Record were:
Report of mediator, dated November 12, 1993
Application for appointment of an arbitrator, dated December 6, 1993
Response by insurer, dated February 7, 1994
Pre-hearing letter, dated April 19, 1994
APPENDIX B - AUTHORITIES
The following cases were included in the Book of Authorities filed on behalf of Allstate:
Edward J. Opatowski and Wawanesa Mutual Insurance Co., September 22, 1992, O.I.C. File No. A-000381
Nazrur Rahman and Co-operators General Insurance Company, December 21, 1993, OIC File No. A-000854
Emilia Zeppieri and Royal Insurance Company of Canada, February 17, 1994, OIC File No. A-005237
M (K) v. M(H) (1992), 1992 CanLII 31 (SCC), 3 S.C.R. 6 (S.C.C.)
National Juice Company v. Dominion Insurance (1978), 1977 CanLII 1375 (ON CA), 18 O.R. (2d) 10 (Ont. C.A.)