Neutral Citation: 1995 ONICDRG 1

File No. A-007284

ONTARIO INSURANCE COMMISSION

BETWEEN:

KATHY CROUTER

Applicant

and

ECONOMICAL MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY

Insurer

DECISION

Issues:

The Applicant, Kathy Crouter, was injured in a motor vehicle accident on July 3, 1990. She applied for and received statutory accident benefits from the Economical Mutual Insurance Company ("Economical"), payable under Ontario Regulation 672¹. Weekly benefits and child care benefits were paid until July 3, 1993, a period of 156 weeks from the date of the accident.

Economical terminated Ms. Crouter's weekly benefits and child care benefits on the basis that she did not meet the post-156 week eligibility test set out in section 13(8)(b) of the Schedule. Ms. Crouter claims that she continues to be entitled to weekly benefits and child care benefits.

The parties were unable to resolve their disputes through mediation, and Ms. Crouter applied for arbitration under the Insurance Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.I.8, as amended. The issues in this hearing are:

1. Is Ms. Crouter entitled to weekly benefits under section 13(8)(b) of the Schedule for any period after July 3, 1993?

2. Is Ms. Crouter entitled to child care benefits under section 13(4) of the Schedule for any period after July 3, 1993?

3. Is Ms. Crouter entitled to benefits under section 6 for the following:

(a) wrist brace ($40); and,

(b) child care and housekeeping services ($3,900 as at the date of the hearing).

Ms. Crouter also claims interest on any amounts owing, and her expenses related to the arbitration.

Result:

1. Ms. Crouter is not entitled to weekly benefits for any period after July 3, 1993.

2. Ms. Crouter is not entitled to child care benefits for any period after July 3, 1993.

3. Ms. Crouter is not entitled to benefits under section 6 of the Schedule for a wrist brace, or child care and housekeeping services.

4. Ms. Crouter is entitled to her expenses related to this arbitration.

Hearing:

The hearing was held in North York, Ontario, on August 22 and 23, 1994, and September 21, 1994, before me, David R. Draper, arbitrator.

Present at the Hearing:

Applicant:

Kathy Crouter

Applicant's Representatives:

Murray H. Miskin

Barrister and Solicitor

Shelley Paddock

Law Clerk

Insurer's Representative:

William J. McCorriston

Barrister and Solicitor

Insurer's Officer:

Dorin Hawkin

Accident Benefits Supervisor

Witnesses:

1. Dr. Edwin P. Urovitz - Orthopaedic surgeon

2. Kathy Crouter - Applicant

3. Dr. Donald R. Spink - Applicant's family doctor

4. Suzanna Koch - Applicant's friend

Exhibits:

The exhibits introduced in this hearing and the other documents before the arbitrator are listed in the appendix to this decision.

Reasons for Decision:

1. Weekly Benefits

Ms. Crouter received weekly benefits of $185 from Economical from July 10, 1990 through July 3, 1993. These benefits were paid under section 13(1), which provides:

13.--(1) The insurer will pay with respect to each insured person who sustains physical, psychological or mental injury as a result of an accident, a weekly benefit during the period in which the insured person suffers substantial inability to perform the essential tasks in which he or she would normally engage if he or she meets the qualifications set out in subsection (2). [emphasis added]

Ms. Crouter claims that she is entitled to ongoing weekly benefits from July 4, 1993. The parties agree that in order to qualify for any additional weekly benefits, she must meet the stricter post-156 week eligibility test in section 13(8):

13.--(8) The insurer is not required to pay a weekly benefit under this section,

(b) for any period in excess of 156 weeks unless it has been established that the injury continuously prevents the insured person from engaging in substantially all of the activities in which the person would normally engage. [emphasis added]

Cases involving the post-156 week test are just now reaching arbitration. At this point, only two arbitration decisions have dealt with the post-156 week test for weekly income benefits under section 12 of the Schedule², and none have decided eligibility for weekly benefits under section 13(8). Counsel did not cite any cases involving other similar legislation.

In order to succeed, Ms. Crouter must establish that as a result of the accident on July 3, 1990, she suffered injuries that continuously prevent her from engaging in substantially all of the activities in which she would normally engage. For the following reasons, I conclude that she is not entitled to any additional weekly benefits, even if a generous interpretation of section 13(8) is applied.

At the time of the accident, Ms. Crouter was a 33 year old single parent, with four children, ages eight, five, three and one. She was receiving Family Benefits ("mother's allowance") of approximately $1,100 per month. She provided a list of her essential tasks, as follows:

• changing and making beds •vacuuming carpets

• vacuuming furniture

• washing and drying dishes

• washing walls

• taking down curtains, washing them and putting them back up

• sweeping floors

• washing floors

• cleaning bathrooms - toilet, bathtub, shower stall

• dusting

• cleaning the fridge and stove inside and out

• washing windows

• doing two to three loads of laundry a day

• cutting grass

• pulling weeds

• planting flowers

• washing the car

• snow removal

• bathing the four children

• washing their hair

• cutting their hair

• driving them to their doctors (eyes, dentist, medical checkups)

• taking them to the hospital after hours

• driving them on school trips

In her testimony, Ms. Crouter also mentioned shopping and preparing meals.

The post-156 week test focuses on the applicant's "activities", rather than on his or her "essential tasks". "Activities" is a broader term than "essential tasks". I accept, however, that Ms. Crouter's normal pre-accident activities were dominated by her family responsibilities.

People do not live their lives in neatly divided compartments. It is not always easy, therefore, to isolate the consequences of an automobile accident from other factors. This case is an example.

Ms. Crouter continues to have trouble managing her daily activities. The difficulty is in determining the extent and source of her limitations.

Ms. Crouter's life has not been easy. She described an extremely difficult childhood and adolescence. After leaving school without quite completing grade 12, she worked at Canadian General Electric (C.G.E.) for approximately eight years. She left this job because her common law spouse, Paul Crouter, did not want her working there.

According to Ms. Crouter, she and Mr. Crouter lived together "off and on", but were never married. They have four children, all boys:

Dates of birth

Steven -

Aug. 13, 1982

Derek -

Nov. 19, 1984

Kevin -

May 13, 1987

Allan -

Sept. 9, 1988

Ms. Crouter has primarily been a homemaker since leaving C.G.E. After Kevin was born, however, she returned to work as a waitress. She testified that this was at Mr. Crouter's insistence. She continued working for approximately one year, but found that she was physically exhausted.

Ms. Crouter described her relationship with Paul Crouter as abusive - physically, emotionally and sexually. It is clear from the clinical records of her family doctor, Dr. Spink, that this relationship has been the source of a great deal of emotional turmoil. In addition, she has had to deal with the serious behavioural problems of her oldest son, Steven.

The Children's Aid Society (CAS) has been involved in supervising the care of Ms. Crouter's children since January 1989. In May 1989, Mr. Crouter moved out. Dr. Spink's clinical notes indicate that Ms. Crouter had a great deal of difficulty coping with the breakdown of her relationship with Mr. Crouter, and with raising four children on her own. By December 1989, her emotional state had deteriorated to the point that Dr. Spink was concerned that she was a suicide risk. He arranged for her to be involuntarily detained in a psychiatric facility so that she could be assessed by a psychiatrist.

Dr. Spink testified that in the spring of 1990, Ms. Crouter was still having emotional problems, but was improving. He felt that she was beginning to take some control over her life. Her friend, Ms. Koch, painted quite a rosy picture of Ms. Crouter's condition during the period from March 1990 until the date of the accident. It is understandable that Ms. Koch wants to help her friend. However, I found her evidence quite partisan, and felt that it suffered from her lack of objectivity. As a result, I am not prepared to give it much weight.

I find that at the time of the accident, Ms. Crouter was having significant problems coping with her daily life. Her medical history shows a great deal of emotional turmoil, with headaches and insomnia. She also had some history of physical problems, but I find that these were primarily related to her pregnancies and were not chronic.

On July 3, 1990, Ms. Crouter was a passenger in a pick-up truck that was travelling on a one-way street. Another vehicle travelling in the wrong direction hit the pick-up truck in the front. Ms. Crouter was initially treated in the emergency room of the local hospital. Her family doctor, Dr. Spink, provided follow-up care.

Economical provided weekly benefits of $185, plus child care benefits of $100 per week for each child. When all four children were at home, therefore, Ms. Crouter was receiving $2,533.05 per month ($185 + $400 = $585 x 4.33 = $2,533.05). This was significantly more than she had been receiving from Family Benefits.

The doctors agree that as a result of the accident, Ms. Crouter suffered soft tissue injuries - a whiplash-type injury affecting her neck and shoulders, and a lower back strain. I accept the view of Dr. Miriam Myers of the Personal Injury Clinic that her recovery was complicated by "numerous psychosocial and economic factors." In her report, dated February 8, 1991, Dr. Myers expressed concern that Ms. Crouter's problems could become chronic, and recommended active rehabilitation.

Ms. Crouter's participation in rehabilitation was limited, at least in part due to her family responsibilities. Her symptoms persisted, and she was referred to Dr. Fred Doris, a specialist in rheumatology and internal medicine. In his report, dated August 1, 1991, Dr. Doris concluded that Ms. Crouter had progressed from an acute cervical sprain to a "fairly classic post-traumatic pain amplification syndrome or fibromyalgia if you will." He felt that her condition was treatable, although given her circumstances, probably not curable.

Starting soon after the accident, Ms. Crouter occasionally mentioned tingling and numbness in her fingers. By February 1992, however, she was complaining about pain and swelling in her left arm. She testified that this pain in her left arm became, and remains, her most significant problem. It is questionable, however, whether it resulted from the accident.

Dr. Doris found Ms. Crouter's arm symptoms unusual. He arranged for a variety of tests, all of which were negative. In the absence of any other explanation, Dr. Doris concluded that the arm pain must result from the original neck injury referring pain into her fingers, forearm and arm region.

However, subsequent testing by Dr. P. Tovich, a neurologist, revealed that Ms. Crouter suffers from bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome, much worse on the left. None of the doctors appear to contest this diagnosis. According to Dr. Tovich, the symptoms of carpal tunnel syndrome include numbness and pain in the fingers, hands, wrists. The pain can radiate upwards along the course of the median nerve up to the elbow and sometimes involve the anterior chest wall on the same side.

Dr. Lan, a consultant in neurology and electrodiagnosis, did some further testing and, in October 1993, recommended a surgical decompression of the left median nerve. Dr. Urovitz explained that this is a common, minor surgery. In his experience, patients generally improve significantly after two to three days, and recover fully in two to three weeks.

Unfortunately, Ms. Crouter has not had this operation. The surgeon, Dr. L.M. Mok, felt that she was not a good candidate for surgery because she could not take time off from her family responsibilities. I find that part of the problem was that Ms. Crouter was very concerned about losing her children. All four of the boys had been apprehended by the CAS in April 1992. The CAS applied to keep them in care, but Ms. Crouter contested the application. Kevin and Allan were returned to her care in May 1992; Derek in February 1993; and, Steven in March 1994.

Ms. Crouter claims that the carpal tunnel syndrome is related to the accident, and significantly restricts her daily activities. She suggested that it could have resulted from the fact that during the accident she used her left hand to grab the unsecured car seat of the child who was sitting next to her. In my opinion, there simply is no medical evidence to support this theory.

In his report, dated October 1, 1993, Dr. Tovich concluded:

The patient appears to have 2 problems. The main one appears to be that of left carpal tunnel syndrome. In fact she also has bilateral finding suggesting bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome but very much more on the left side. She has a second issue of neck pain and muscle ache and pain which is probably related to post traumatic event. This has caused a great deal of confusion in terms of the diagnosis over the past year at least.

Dr. Tovich was then specifically asked about the connection between the carpal tunnel syndrome and the accident. In his opinion, "[t]here is no direct correlation between motor vehicle accident and Carpal Tunnel Syndrome." Dr. Urovitz also expressed the view that Ms. Crouter's carpal tunnel syndrome did not result from the accident.

The only support for a connection between the accident and the carpal tunnel syndrome comes from a letter from Dr. Spink, dated October 21, 1993. In his testimony, however, he retracted this opinion, explaining that he wrote the letter in an attempt to assist Ms. Crouter. Dr. Spink then specifically agreed with Dr. Tovich and Dr. Urovitz that the carpal tunnel syndrome was not related to the accident.

I find that Ms. Crouter's carpal tunnel syndrome did not result from the accident. This is a significant finding given her testimony that pain in her left arm has been her most debilitating problem for at least the past year.

It is possible that some of the pain in Ms. Crouter's left arm is related to her whiplash injury. Dr. Tovich indicated that Ms. Crouter's whiplash injury could cause pain radiating down her arms, and that, without an operation to correct the carpal tunnel syndrome, it could be difficult to distinguish the pain arising from the carpal tunnel syndrome from that related to her whiplash injury. In my view, however, the various medical reports, and the testimony of Dr. Urovitz and Dr. Spink, suggest that the primary cause of her pain is the carpal tunnel syndrome.

The other major problem with Ms. Crouter's claim is that she has continued with many of her pre-accident activities. She acknowledged that she continued to do most of the housekeeping and child care, but with pain and not up to her pre-accident standards. She explained that she had no choice but to persevere.

Dr. Doris provides the strongest support for Ms. Crouter's position. He concluded that she has post-traumatic fibromyalgia, and felt that although her symptoms would "wax and wane", they would probably be with her for the rest of her life. In his opinion:

Functionally Cathy shall always be restricted in what she is able to do. She has impressed me however with her general tenacity and with her ability to persevere and work though pain.

Dr. Doris's opinion is compromised to some extent by the fact that he was not aware that Ms. Crouter has carpal tunnel syndrome. More importantly, however, the test of eligibility under section 13(8)(b) is not whether Ms. Crouter has a permanent injury, or whether she has ongoing pain, or some restrictions. The test is whether, as a result of the accident, she is prevented from engaging in substantially all of her normal pre-accident activities. In my view, Dr. Doris's opinion does not indicate this level of disability.

Dr. Urovitz was also asked to deal with Ms. Crouter's restrictions. In his report, dated June 2, 1993, he accepted that Ms. Crouter had chronic myofascial pain, although he was not convinced that she met the strict criteria of fibromyalgia. He concluded, however, that she was "fully capable of performing all of the usual household duties, with the exception of the heavier duties such as snow shovelling or cutting grass."

In August 1994, Dr. Urovitz addressed this issue again, and concluded:

Based upon my review of this file to date, coupled with results of my own physical examination of May 1993, I am unable to ascertain any reason why Mrs. Crouter would be unable to perform any of the tasks listed under the heading "Essential Tasks" provided these were done in a paced and unhurried manner.

Ms. Emilie Embrey, an occupational therapist at Kawartha Therapy Services, substantially shares Dr. Urovitz's opinion. In a letter, dated August 16, 1994, Ms. Embrey expressed her assessment that, even taking into account Ms. Crouter's left arm problems, she could do most of the tasks set out in her list of essential tasks.

I accept that Ms. Crouter's restrictions must be evaluated based on the realities of her life. It is difficult to control the demands of four children. I conclude, however, that the evidence does not support a finding that she is prevented from engaging in substantially all of her normal activities. When the symptoms related to her carpal tunnel syndrome are taken out of the equation, it is my view that she falls considerably short of meeting the eligibility test in section 13(8)(b) of the Schedule.

I find some comfort in reaching this decision in the surveillance videotapes, which show Ms. Crouter going about a range of activities, with no obvious limitations.

I also find it significant that Ms. Crouter has had very little medical care since late 1993. She stopped seeing Dr. Spink in November or December 1993. She started seeing Dr. Hans Koritz, a pain management specialist and general practitioner. According to the OHIP summaries, however, she only saw him three times: December 15, 1993, January 11, 1994, and March 11, 1994. She testified that Dr. Koritz did not discharge her, but that she could not afford to travel to see him. In the absence of evidence that she was denied benefits for travel, I do not find this explanation particularly persuasive.

2. Child Care Benefits

Ms. Crouter is also claiming child care benefits under section 13(4) of the Schedule, the relevant portions of which provide:

13.--(4) The insurer will pay to an insured person who is receiving a weekly benefit under subsection (1)... a benefit of $50 per week ... for each person who at the time of the accident was residing with the insured person and in respect of whom the insured person was the primary caregiver if the person receiving the care was less than sixteen years of age ...

Child care benefits under section 13(4) are paid along with weekly benefits. Because I have concluded that Ms. Crouter is not entitled to any further weekly benefits, she also is ineligible for any additional child care benefits.

3. Supplementary Medical and Rehabilitation Benefits

(a) Wrist splint

The wrist splint is required due to Ms. Crouter's carpal tunnel syndrome. I have concluded that this condition is unrelated to the accident. Therefore, Economical is not responsible for providing benefits for the wrist splint.

(b) Child care and housekeeping services

This issue is troublesome. There was considerable uncertainty during the hearing about the precise nature of this claim. In addition, the factual background is unclear.

My understanding is that in addition to weekly benefits and child care benefits, Economical also provided benefits for housekeeping and child care assistance for some period. Details of these payments were not provided. It appears that all of Ms. Crouter's accident benefits were then terminated, effective July 3, 1993. She went back on Family Benefits, receiving $1,761 per month.

It is unclear why all of Ms. Crouter's accident benefits were terminated at the same time. Eligibility for benefits under sections 6 and 13 of the Schedule must be determined independently. It is quite possible that an applicant may become ineligible for weekly benefits under section 13, but remain eligible for supplementary medical and rehabilitation benefits under section 6.

Unfortunately, Ms. Crouter's evidence about her housekeeping and child care expenses was extremely vague. Her position, as set out in Exhibit 21, is that after her accident benefits were terminated, she continued to receive housekeeping and child care services from a number of people, including Marlene Courney, Erica Prentvick, Lucy Hobbs and Suzanna Koch. She was unable to pay them, but they agreed to provide the services "on a wait for payment basis at a reduced rate."

Ms. Crouter has no records of any of the services provided, or anything to document what these people expected, or even hoped, to be paid. Ms. Koch testified at the hearing, but I heard no indication that she provided any housekeeping or child care services after July 3, 1993, or that she expected any payment.

I am also troubled by the fact that in September 1993, approximately two months after her benefits were terminated, Ms. Crouter moved out of the city. I heard no evidence about how this affected the housekeeping and child care arrangements.

Ms. Crouter's claim for housekeeping and child care is $3,900 for the period from July 3, 1993 to the date of the hearing. She was not able to explain the figure. Her lawyer, Mr. Miskin, explained that it represented $300 per month for 13 months. I was left with the impression that the $3,900 was more like a claim for damages than a claim for specific expenses.

Based on the evidence provided, I am unable to conclude that Ms. Crouter's claim for housekeeping and child care was reasonably required as a result of the accident.

4. Expenses

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

282 (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.

Arbitrators have consistently granted expenses unless the claim was fraudulent, manifestly frivolous or vexatious, or the applicant's conduct unduly prolonged the proceedings.

Mr. McCorriston, on behalf of Allstate, submitted that this is an appropriate case in which to deny expenses. I do not agree. There is not yet an established body of arbitration decisions to give counsel much direction about the post-156 week test. In my view, the claim was legitimate and fairly presented.

Therefore, I conclude that I should exercise my discretion to award Ms. Crouter her expenses related to the arbitration, calculated according to Schedule 1 of the Dispute Resolution Practice Code and in Ontario Regulation 664, R.R.O. 1990.

The parties are encouraged to reach an agreement as to the amount of the expenses. However, if an agreement cannot be reached, I remain seized of this matter and either party may apply for an assessment of the expenses.

Order:

1. Ms. Crouter is not entitled to weekly benefits for any period after July 3, 1993.

2. Ms. Crouter is not entitled to child care benefits for any period after July 3, 1993.

3. Ms. Crouter is not entitled to benefits under section 6 of the Schedule for a wrist brace, or child care and housekeeping services.

4. Ms. Crouter is entitled to her expenses related to this arbitration.

January 3, 1995

David R. Draper Arbitrator

Date

APPENDIX

Exhibit 1 -

The Insurer's medical brief, containing photocopies of the following documents:

Tab 1 -

Report of Dr. Myers, dated February 8, 1991

Tab 2 -

Report of Dr. Stockley, dated February 8, 1991

Tab 3 -

Report of Dr. Urovitz, dated February 15, 1991

Tab 4 -

Report of Dr. Doris, dated August 1, 1991

Tab 5 -

Report of Dr. Roberts, dated October 29, 1991

Tab 6 -

Report of Dr. Spink, dated November 5, 1991

Tab 7 -

Report of Dr. Doris, dated November 28, 1991

Tab 8 -

Report of Dr. Roberts, dated December 5, 1991

Tab 9 -

Report of Dr. Doris, dated March 17, 1992

Tab 10 -

Report of Dr. Spink, dated December 3, 1992

Tab 11 -

Report of Dr. Doris, dated March 29, 1993

Tab 12 -

Report of Dr. Spink, dated April 23, 1993

Tab 13 -

Report of Dr. Urovitz, dated June 2, 1993

Tab 14 -

Report of Dr. Doris, dated June 21, 1993

Tab 15 -

Report of Occupational Therapist Emilie Embrey, dated September 23, 1993

Tab 16 -

Report of Dr. Spink, dated September 30, 1993

Tab 17 -

Report of Dr. Tovich, dated October 1, 1993

Tab 18 -

Report of Dr. Lan, dated October 13, 1993

Tab 19 -

Report of Dr. Spink, dated October 21, 1993

Tab 20 -

Report of Dr. Koritz, dated December 15, 1993

Tab 21 -

Report of Dr. Koritz, dated March 14, 1994

Exhibit 2 -

The Insurer's rehabilitation brief, containing photocopies of reports of Canadian Rehabilitative Consultants Inc. to Economical, dated:

Tab 1 -

August 27, 1990

Tab 2 -

December 6, 1990

Tab 3 -

April 18, 1991

Tab 4 -

May 21, 1991

Tab 5 -

January 9, 1992

Tab 6 -

March 9, 1992

Tab 7 -

November 4, 1992

Tab 8 -

November 16, 1992

Tab 9 -

January 7, 1993

Tab 10 -

February 15, 1993

Tab 11 -

February 24, 1993

Tab 12 -

March 22, 1993

Tab 13 -

May 10, 1993

Tab 14 -

June 21, 1993

Tab 15 -

July 21, 1993

Tab 16 -

September 13, 1993

Tab 17 -

October 19, 1993

Tab 18 -

December 2, 1993

Exhibit 3 -

A photocopy of a letter, dated August 12, 1994, from Dr. P. Tovich to the Applicant's lawyer

Exhibit 4 -

A photocopy of a letter, dated August 16, 1994, from Dr. P. Tovich to the Applicant's lawyer

Exhibit 5 -

A photocopy of a letter, dated August 16, 1994, from Emilie Embrey, O.T., to the Insurer's lawyer

Exhibit 6 -

A photocopy of a letter, dated August 18, 1994, from Dr. E.P. Urovitz to the Insurer's lawyer

Exhibit 7 -

A photocopy of a letter, dated August 19, 1994, from Dr. Donald R. Spink to the Applicant's lawyer

Exhibit 8 -

The clinical notes and records of Dr. F. Doris

Exhibit 9 -

The clinical notes and records of Dr. P. Tovich

Exhibit 10 -

The clinical notes and records of Dr. Donald R. Spink

Exhibit 11 -

A photocopy of the Emergency Record of Peterborough Civic Hospital, dated July 3, 1990

Exhibit 12 -

A photocopy of an O.H.I.P. record

Exhibit 13 -

A photocopy of a handwritten list of "essential tasks" prepared by the Applicant

Exhibit 14 -

The curriculum vitae of Dr. Edwin P. Urovitz

Exhibit 15 -

Surveillance videotape taken on November 28, 1993

Exhibit 16 -

Surveillance videotape taken on March 9, 1994

Exhibit 17 -

Surveillance videotape taken on August 14, 1994

Exhibit 18 -

Excerpts from the Applicant's Examination for Discovery, dated July 22, 1993

Exhibit 19 -

Six photographs taken on May 28, 1993

Exhibit 20 -

Eight photographs taken on August 14, 1994

Exhibit 21 -

Photocopy of document entitled, "Crouter Medical and Rehabilitation Expenses"

Exhibit 22 -

Physiotherapy records of the Peterborough Civic Hospital

In addition to the exhibits, the following documents were before the arbitrator from the Ontario Insurance Commission file:

• Report of Mediator, dated January 10, 1994

• Application for Appointment of an Arbitrator, dated February 7, 1994

• Response by Insurer, dated March 23, 1994

• Letter, dated May 12, 1994, confirming the pre-hearing discussion held on April 20, 1994

Footnotes

1. 1Prior to January 1, 1994, Ontario Regulation 672 was called the No-Fault Benefits Schedule. After that date it became the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule - Accidents Before January 1, 1994. In this decision, the term "Schedule" will be used to refer to Regulation 672.
2. 2Sabita Johnson and Halifax Insurance Company, September 1, 1994, OIC File No. A-005216 (Palmer). Vincenza Di Censo and Wellington Insurance Company, August 31, 1994, OIC File No. A-004198 (Mackintosh).