Neutral Citation: 1995 ONICDRG 197

File No.: A-008977

ONTARIO INSURANCE COMMISSION

BETWEEN:

ISABEL PEDDEN

Applicant

and

DOMINION OF CANADA GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY

Insurer

DECISION

Issues:

The Applicant, Isabel Pedden, was injured in a motor vehicle accident on January 23, 1991. She applied for and received statutory accident benefits from the Insurer, Dominion of Canada General Insurance Company ("Dominion"), payable under Ontario Regulation 672.¹ Weekly income benefits were terminated by Dominion on January 30, 1994 on the basis that Ms. Pedden did not meet the post-156 week eligibility test for weekly income benefits set out in section 12(5)(b) of the Schedule. Ms. Pedden claims that she continues to be eligible for weekly income benefits.

The parties were unable to resolve their disputes through mediation and Ms. Pedden applied for arbitration under the Insurance Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.I.8, as amended.

The issue in this hearing is:

1. Is Ms. Pedden entitled to weekly income benefits under section 12(5)(b) of the Schedule for any period after January 30, 1994?

Ms. Pedden also claims interest on any amounts owing, and her expenses incurred in the hearing.

Result:

1. Ms. Pedden is entitled to continued weekly income benefits until completion of the recommended work hardening program.

2. Ms. Pedden is entitled to interest on the amounts owing.

3. Ms. Pedden is entitled to her expenses incurred in respect of the arbitration.

Hearing:

The hearing was held in London, Ontario, on January 18 and 19, 1995, before me, Shemin Manji, arbitrator.

Present at the Hearing:

Applicant: Isabel Pedden

Applicant's Representative: Terrence R. Shillington Barrister and Solicitor

Insurer's Representative: David A. Zuber Barrister and Solicitor

Witnesses: Ms. Isabel Pedden Ms. Kristin Graham Ms. Cathy M. Newton

A list of exhibits and other documents on the record is attached as Schedule A. Cases referred to are listed in Schedule B.

Reasons for Decision:

1. Background Facts and Issue:

Ms. Pedden is 44 years old. She is a single parent. She lives with her two sons, ages 18 and 21, in Strathroy, Ontario. She graduated from high school, with a grade 12 diploma, in 1971. After graduation, she worked as a secretary with Glendale Trailers, a manufacturer of trailers. Her duties included typing, answering the telephone and filing. She left her employment with Glendale Trailers after one and a half years, when she got married. After she married, she moved to Simcoe, Ontario.

Ms. Pedden did not work in Simcoe because she and her husband wished to start a family. Ms. Pedden and her husband had two children. Ms. Pedden stayed home with their children until they started school.

In 1982, Ms. Pedden moved back to Strathroy, and commenced full-time employment, as an assembly line worker, with Franklin Electric of Canada ("Franklin Electric"), a manufacturer of small electric motors. She testified that when she decided to return to work in 1982 she chose factory work over secretarial work, because she did not like secretarial work.

When Ms. Pedden first joined Franklin Electric she worked on the assembly line, assembling motors. After six months she was promoted to repairing electric motors. This new job required a knowledge of motors. It involved taking apart a motor, finding the problem, fixing the problem and reassembling the motor. The electric motors were small and light, and Ms. Pedden could hold them in her hand. Ms. Pedden was the only employee doing this particular job. The work was steady as there was always a backlog of motors to be repaired. She could sit or stand while performing the job. She would work at her own speed. Ms. Pedden was paid approximately $7.00 per hour when she started and she was making approximately $10.00 per hour when she terminated her employment with Franklin Electric in 1990. There was some overtime work at Franklin Electric, but not very often.

In September 1990, Ms. Pedden left her employment with Franklin Electric, after she obtained employment as a full-time assembly line worker with CAMI Automotive Inc. ("CAMI"), a manufacturer of automobiles, at its plant in Ingersoll, Ontario. The CAMI plant in Ingersoll is an hour's drive from Strathroy. Ms. Pedden testified that she left Franklin Electric to better herself and make more money. She indicated that jobs with CAMI are highly coveted. She testified that she applied to CAMI a year and a half before getting the job. She underwent several interviews and extensive testing before being hired.

Ms. Pedden began her employment with CAMI on September 4, 1990. She testified that she loved her job. The work was not boring and the money was great. Ms. Pedden performed different jobs which rotated every two hours. During an eight hour shift she did four different jobs. Most of these jobs, including putting the trim onto cars, taking doors off and putting roof lines in, required continual standing, walking, bending, lifting greater than 10 lbs, stretching or reaching at or above shoulder height, and pushing and pulling (repetitive hand movements).² Ms. Pedden testified that she did a fair amount of overtime. Her income varied, from $600.00 per week to $900.00 per week, depending on the overtime.

Ms. Pedden had only been working with CAMI for four months when she was involved in the accident.

On January 23, 1991, Ms. Pedden was driving to work on Highway 401 when a transport truck apparently lost control and crossed the median in front of her. It collided with the two cars in front of Ms. Pedden's car and subsequently with her car. Ms. Pedden hit the dolly wheel of the truck. Her car bounced backwards from the impact. Ms. Pedden had her seat belt on but the force of the impact caused her head to strike the roof of her car.

Ms. Pedden did not go to work that day, however, she did not seek medical attention. She returned to work on the following day and continued to work until February 28, 1991.³ Ms. Pedden testified that during this time she experienced severe headaches and left occipital, neck and shoulder pain. Ms. Pedden testified her work at CAMI aggravated her symptoms. She could not bend, she was dizzy all the time and she started losing feeling in her hands. Ms. Pedden testified that once she came close to "passing out" while working.

On February 28, 1991, Ms. Pedden went to see her family doctor, Dr. G.W. Perkin, for the first time since the accident. Dr. Perkin's clinical notes indicate that Ms. Pedden complained of pain in her neck and shoulders since the accident. Dr. Perkin's initial examination showed decreased flexion and extension in the neck and decreased rotation towards the right. Dr. Perkin noted that her upper back and shoulders were tender. X-rays of Ms. Pedden's cervical spine and skull were essentially normal.⁴ Dr. Perkin suggested that Ms. Pedden stop working. He treated Ms. Pedden with rest, pain-relieving and anti-inflammatory medications, muscle relaxants to control muscle spasms in her neck, and hot packs. He also referred her to physiotherapy at Strathroy Middlesex General Hospital, where she attended for physiotherapy treatments two to three times a week. Physiotherapy treatments were discontinued temporarily in June 1991 because Ms. Pedden's symptoms were not diminishing. However, they were resumed in July 1991.⁵

On July 9, 1991, Ms. Pedden was examined by CAMI's physician, Dr. Philip McCabe. Dr. McCabe noted that Ms. Pedden "...present(ed) with marked limitation of the movement of her cervical spine". He also noted that she had decreased grip strength of her right hand. However, he recommended that she return to modified work with CAMI starting August 12, 1991 "...in order to prevent further disability from remaining out of the workplace".⁶

Ms. Pedden attempted a graduated return to work on August 12, 1991. On that day she was supposed to work for four hours - two hours on the assembly line and two hours off line. While on the assembly line on that day, she was to avoid above shoulder work, sustained bending or constant repetitive bending, lifting over 10 lbs, strenuous pushing/pulling operations and sudden head movements.⁷ Ms. Pedden testified that her symptoms were aggravated even before she got to CAMI due to the driving distance from Strathroy to Ingersoll. Ms. Pedden testified that once she got to CAMI, she gave up after three hours of work because of headaches and tightness and pain in her neck and shoulder area.

After her unsuccessful attempt at returning to work, Ms. Pedden underwent extensive medical investigations by various specialists to determine the cause and extent of her problems and various types of treatments, active and passive, including physiotherapy, massage and psychological counselling, at the request of her treating physicians and Dominion. She continued to take pain relieving medication and she received two cortisone injections into the neck and shoulder area (paravertebral cervical plexus blocks).⁸ Ms. Pedden was very motivated to improve her functional status and return to work at CAMI.⁹ However, her level of function was not measurably improved by any of the treatments she received. She remained symptomatic. Her headaches improved a little (in frequency, intensity and duration).¹⁰ But her complaints of neck and shoulder pain persisted. She also continued to complain about numbness and tingling in both hands, particularly the right hand.

All the physicians who examined Ms. Pedden agreed that, as a result of the injuries to the soft tissues around the cervical spine that she sustained in the accident, she continued to suffer from neck and shoulder pain. An MRI scan of Ms. Pedden's cervical spine, done on March 26, 1993, showed some degeneration of the cervical spine with disc protrusion.¹¹ However, the evidence indicated that, while the degenerative changes may have pre-disposed her or put her at higher risk of developing neck and shoulder pain, the accident was the precipitating and primary factor in the development of her symptoms.¹²

All the physicians who examined Ms. Pedden also agreed that she had reached maximum medical recovery by August 1993 and the effects of her injuries prevented her from returning to her regular work with CAMI. However, they felt that she could return to work with certain functional restrictions. Dr. R. Teasell, a specialist in physical medicine and rehabilitation to whom Ms. Pedden was referred by her family physician and who treated Ms. Pedden's soft tissue injuries, felt that Ms. Pedden would not be able to tolerate work which required heavy lifting (beyond 10-15 kilograms), repetitive overhead movements, repetitive pushing and pulling and sitting and standing in one position beyond 30 minutes at one time without being able to get up and shift her position. He recommended a graduated return to full-time work within these restrictions.¹³ Dominion's orthopaedic consultant, Dr. David C. Taylor, recommended very similar restrictions. In addition to the restrictions placed by Dr. Teasell, Dr. Taylor was of the view that repetitive bending would also aggravate Ms. Pedden's condition.¹⁴All of the physicians, except Dr. Teasell, indicated that they felt that Ms. Pedden would be able to manage work within her functional restrictions on a full-time basis. Dr. Teasell felt that although return to full-time work was the goal, it may not be possible. He suggested an approach that, in his view, would most likely be successful in getting Ms. Pedden back to work on a full-time basis:

In order to make it more likely that she is to be successful returning to work Isabel should return to work on a part-time basis within the restrictions listed above. This would involve a minimum of two hours and maximum of four hours per day three days a week, gradually increasing the number of hours as she tolerates it. It would best be to progress to four hours three days a week then four hours five days a week and then six hours three days a week with four hours the other two days, etc. This way she can find out what her upper limit is. ...Retraining her towards a more sedentary type job or at least lining her up with one via vocational counsellors is the approach that is most likely to have success.¹⁵

Dominion paid Ms. Pedden weekly income benefits, in the amount of $542.10 per week, for 156 weeks, from January 30, 1991 to January 30, 1994, under section 12(1) of the Schedule. Dominion does not dispute that Ms. Pedden continues to be disabled from returning to her former employment with CAMI. However, it claims that she does not meet the stricter test of disability required of applicants after 156 weeks. This test is set out in section 12(5)(b) of the Schedule, which states that:

12.-(5) The insurer is not required to pay a weekly benefit under subsection (1),

(b) for any period in excess of 156 weeks unless it has been established that the injury continuously prevents the insured from engaging in any occupation or employment for which he or she is reasonably suited by education, training or experience. [emphasis added]

Therefore, the issue that I am required to decide is whether, after January 30, 1994, when weekly income benefits were terminated, Ms. Pedden's accident-related injuries continuously prevent her "...from engaging in any occupation or employment for which she is reasonably suited by education, training or experience".

2. Analysis and Conclusion

In order to qualify for weekly income benefits after January 30, 1994, Ms. Pedden must establish, under section 12(5)(b) of the Schedule, that her injuries continuously prevent her from engaging in any occupation or employment for which she is reasonably suited by education, training or experience. In my view, an occupation or employment for which an applicant is "reasonably suited", under section 12(5)(b), is not any occupation or employment within the applicant's physical and/or mental capabilities. The word "suited" is qualified by the word "reasonably". "Reasonable" is defined in the Black's Law Dictionary as "(f)air, proper, just, moderate, suitable under the circumstances".¹⁶ The words "reasonably suited" and "by education, training or experience" suggest an interpretation of section 12(5)(b) of the Schedule similar to that adopted by the courts in predecessor automobile legislation and under accident and sickness policies with wording very similar to that found in section 12(5)(b) of the Schedule¹⁷:

• the occupation or employment must be suitable for the applicant viewed fairly and realistically in the context of his or her educational and employment background.

• A "reasonably suitable" job is one which is comparable to the applicant's pre-accident occupation in nature, status and remuneration.

• An applicant is not required to engage in trivial or inconsequential work, work for which he or she is overqualified, or work for which he or she is completely unsuited by background.

I agree with Senior Arbitrator Susan Naylor in Francis Mills and Canadian General Insurance Company, July 6, 1995, OIC File No. A-005599, that section 12(5)(b) focuses primarily on an applicant's disability or functional limitations and not on the broader availability of work in the job market. I also agree with Arbitrator Fred Sampliner in Shirley A. Reid and Continental Insurance Company, July 27, 1995, OIC File No. A-006022, that although section 12(5)(b) "...eligibility is initially determined through a consideration of the (applicant's) disability...the disability cannot be seen in a vacuum, but should be viewed in the context of the (applicant's) competitiveness in the existing marketplace."

Dominion submits that Ms. Pedden does not qualify for weekly income benefits under section 12(5)(b) of the Schedule because she suffers from a relatively mild disability and there are a variety of jobs within her physical limits that are suitable for her without retraining. Dominion relies on the evidence of Ms. Cathy Newton, rehabilitation counsellor and manager of Rehabilitation Services, Westminster Rehabilitation Management ("WRM"), in support of this submission.

Ms. Newton testified that in early 1994 and 1995, she identified, for Dominion, jobs which were, in her opinion as a rehabilitation counsellor, suitable for Ms. Pedden, given her education, training, experience, physical restrictions and interests.¹⁸ These jobs would generally require no further training, education or experience than that possessed by Ms. Pedden. Ms. Newton identified these jobs after reviewing the information provided to her by Dominion and Ms. Pedden's rehabilitation counsellor, the WRM labour market survey binder, the London Free Press dated January 16 and 17, 1995, and the Canada Employment Telemessage Centre. The jobs included the following: radio station receptionist, ticket agent for Orchestra London, sales in a music store or for a division of the music industry such as ticket sales for concerts, customer service representative for a financial institution, race track ticket sales, cashier, receptionist, front desk clerk, telephone operator, telemarketer, lottery booth attendant, portrait studio assistant, pharmacy assistant, answering service operator, retailer/sales representative/merchandiser, sales associate or skin care product consultant.

Ms. Newton testified that many of the identified jobs were part-time in nature, although some may lead to full-time employment.

I did not find Ms. Newton's evidence particularly helpful in identifying jobs that are reasonably suitable for Ms. Pedden. She did not discuss the duties and physical demands of any of the jobs. Some of the jobs, for example, sales and cashier, often require prolonged standing or repetitive overhead movements (restocking shelves) and appear to be outside her physical capabilities. Many of the jobs, while not trivial or inconsequential, are outside her working experience and many of the jobs would not provide her with an income comparable to her pre-accident income. They are part-time and pay minimum wage.

While I do not find that the jobs identified by Ms. Newton are reasonably suitable for Ms. Pedden, I find that there are jobs that Ms. Pedden is able to undertake for which she is reasonably suited by her education, training or work experience.

Ms. Pedden's work experience consists of work repairing electric motors (motor repair technician), factory assembly work and secretarial work.

I am not persuaded that Ms. Pedden is not reasonably suited for the kind of work she did at Franklin Electric repairing electric motors (motor repair technician).

Ms. Pedden testified that she is not suited for the kind of work she performed at Franklin Electric because it requires arm movement. Ms. Pedden's doctors have recommended retraining for her in a "more sedentary type job", however, in my view, the job of motor repair technician as it was described by Ms. Pedden at the hearing (supra) does not fall outside her functional restrictions. These functional restrictions do not preclude work involving all arm movements, only repetitive overhead movements. The job of motor repair technician as described by Ms. Pedden does not require repetitive overhead movements. The job also does not require heavy lifting, repetitive pushing and pulling, repetitive bending, and sitting or standing in one position beyond 30 minutes at one time. Dr. Perkin indicated that this kind of work would be acceptable for Ms. Pedden (medically).¹⁹

Ms. Pedden only worked with CAMI for four months before the accident. She worked with Franklin Electric for eight years, spending most of her time there working as a motor repair technician. Thus, Ms. Pedden's job as a motor repair technician reflects as closely as possible her pre-accident level of functioning and remuneration. The job also matches her personal and vocational characteristics. Vocational testing performed by psychologist Dr. T.V.G. Smith, on May 4, 1994, at the request of Ms. Pedden's solicitors, found that specific jobs associated with her pattern of interests included assembly and repairing occupations and technical jobs such as small motors mechanic.²⁰

Ms. Pedden testified that after she left Franklin Electric, it closed down and moved its operations to the United States. Therefore, she is not able to return to her former employment. However, the focus of the inquiry, under section 12(5)(b) of the Schedule, is primarily on Ms. Pedden's disability, not on the availability of work in the job market. In any event, I am not satisfied that work similar to her work as a motor repair technician is not available. Ms. Pedden testified that since the accident, she has made no inquiries for such work.

I also find that Ms. Pedden is reasonably suited for light assembly work in an industrial or similar setting.

Ms. Pedden testified that she would be interested in a light factory job if it fits within her functional restrictions. However, she felt that she would not be able to do this kind of work because all assembly work requires a lot of arm movement, including pushing and pulling. Ms. Pedden testified that she understood from her physicians that factory work was "out for her". This was why they were recommending retraining.

I do not accept Ms. Pedden's contention that she would not physically be able to do light assembly work. Dr. Teasell only ruled out assembly-line work because he assumed that it involved heavy repetitive physical work.²¹ Light assembly work by definition is not heavy. It may involve repetitive arm movements. However, Ms. Pedden's functional restrictions do not preclude work involving repetitive arm movements, only repetitive overhead movements. The functional restrictions preclude work that involves repetitive pushing and pulling, however, no evidence was adduced in support of Ms. Pedden's contention that all light assembly work involves repetitive pushing or pulling.

No evidence was adduced that light assembly work would not provide Ms. Pedden with remuneration similar to her pre-accident employment. Further, light assembly work matches Ms. Pedden's personal and vocational characteristics.

Dominion submits that Ms. Pedden is also able to engage in secretarial/clerical work. Ms. Pedden testified that even though she is not interested in secretarial work, she is prepared to try it. However, she is not sure if she would be physically capable of doing it, because of the finger and arm movements that may be required. Ms. Pedden also felt that she was not competitively employable to work in this field without further upgrading and training for two reasons: firstly, she has not typed since she left her employment with Glendale Trailers; and secondly, she has no knowledge of or experience in computers. Ms. Pedden testified that she has learned from reviewing newspapers and "ask(ing) around town" that to be competitively employable in the secretarial field, she needs to upgrade her typing skills and acquire knowledge of computers.

Ms. Pedden relied on the evidence of Ms. Kristin Graham, employment consultant, Crawford & Company Health Care Management Services ("Crawford"), in support of her testimony that she was not competitively employable in the secretarial field.

Ms. Graham testified that Crawford was retained by Ms. Pedden's solicitors, in 1994, to investigate the appropriateness of Ms. Pedden working in a secretarial and clerical environment, having regard to her restrictions and her skills in this area. Crawford asked a personnel agency, Contact Personnel ("Contact"), to determine Ms. Pedden's typing speed and test Ms. Pedden in WordPerfect 5.1 to ascertain her level of computer literacy. It was determined that Ms. Pedden had a typing speed of 20 words per minute and had no knowledge of computers. Contact advised that it would not consider Ms. Pedden as a client: she needed courses to improve her typing skills, and to gain the knowledge necessary to input information into a computer.

Ms. Graham testified that she made further inquiries about secretarial work. She found that although many employers were prepared to offer some job modifications to clerical workers, all employers were asking for individuals with good computer skills as well as accurate typing skills and speed.

After completing her investigation, Ms. Graham concluded that Ms. Pedden requires "skill enhancement/training" to be competitive in the current market place. Ms. Graham recommended a typing course and courses in WordPerfect and Lotus at a business training school in London. After completing the courses, Ms. Graham suggested a graduated work hardening placement, to build up work tolerance, in accordance with Dr. Teasell's recommendation. Ms. Graham testified that at the end of the placement, Ms. Pedden could be expected to find a part-time or full-time position.

I am not convinced that secretarial/clerical work falls outside of the functional restrictions suggested by Drs. Teasell and Taylor. However, aside from the fact that Ms. Pedden is not interested in this kind of work, her secretarial experience dates back over a considerable time (more than 20 years) and I accept Ms. Graham's opinion that, given her low typing speed and her lack of knowledge of computers, Ms. Pedden would likely not be competitive in applying for and obtaining a job in this field without further training.

Dominion submits that not all clerical positions require high typing speeds or computer skills and on the job training may be provided. However, Ms. Newton, who testified on Dominion's behalf, concurred with Ms. Graham's opinion that some form of upgrading or skill enhancement would be necessary if Ms. Pedden were to decide to pursue clerical employment, given her lack of recent experience and practice.

While I find that Ms. Pedden's injuries do not continuously prevent her from engaging in work similar to her work as a motor repair technician and light assembly work, I accept that she requires a graduated work hardening placement to build up her working tolerance, prior to full-time employment in either of these fields, in accordance with Dr. Teasell's recommendation.

Ms. Pedden is entitled to weekly income benefits if her injuries continuously prevent her from engaging in work for which she is reasonably suited by education, training and experience. I am satisfied that Ms. Pedden is entitled to weekly income benefits until the completion of the recommended work hardening program.

Dominion submits that there is a "diligence requirement" in section 12(5)(b) of the Schedule and an insurer is not responsible for paying weekly income benefits in a case where an applicant has not explored all options before the 156 weeks are up. In this case, Dominion submits Ms. Pedden is not entitled to weekly income benefits after January 30, 1994 because, inter alia, she has not presented a specific proposal for a work hardening program.

I do not agree. The evidence indicates that the reason why Ms. Pedden has not presented a rehabilitation proposal is because she needed and sought direction from the rehabilitation counsellors retained by Dominion in this area. In this case, Dominion was aware of Ms. Pedden's need for a graduated return to work program as early as July 1993²² but took no steps to meet that need. Further, section 12(5)(b) of the Schedule does not on its face impose a "diligence requirement" on an applicant. Accordingly, in order to reduce or eliminate the need for an insurer to pay ongoing weekly income benefits under section 12(5)(b), it is in the insurer's interest not to sit back and wait for an applicant to submit a specific proposal for rehabilitation. The insurer must be proactive and take steps to maximize the applicant's reintegration to the workforce and his or her earning potential.

3. Expenses:

An award of expenses in favour of an applicant may be made under section 282(11) of the Act which states:

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 Ontario Regulation 664.

Ms. Pedden is entitled to her expenses in accordance with Ontario Regulation 664. If the parties are unable to agree on the amount owing, either of them may apply for an assessment of expenses.

Order:

1. Ms. Pedden is entitled to continued weekly income benefits until completion of the recommended work hardening program.

2. Mr. Pedden is entitled to interest on the amounts owing.

3. Ms. Pedden is entitled to her expenses incurred in respect of the arbitration.

December 29, 1995

Shemin Manji Arbitrator

Date

SCHEDULE A - THE RECORD

Exhibits:

Exhibit 1 Joint Brief of Medical and Rehabilitation documents

Tab A Clinical notes and records of Dr. Perkin

Tab B Clinical notes and records of Dr. Teasell

Tab C Reports of Dr. Rice

Tab D Report of Dr. Taylor

Tab E Report of Dr. Abdalla

Tab F Report of Dr. Jerome

Tab G Records of St. Joseph's Health Centre

Tab H Report of Dr. Smith

Tab I Rehabilitation reports of Nancy Haston & Associates

Tab J Report of Westminster Orthopaedic Rehabilitation Centre

Tab K Maintaining Independence - Home Functional Assessment

Tab L Reports of Westminster Rehabilitation Management

Tab M Report of Crawford & Company Healthcare Management

Exhibit 2 Curriculum Vitae of Ms. Kristin Graham

Exhibit 3 Curriculum Vitae of Ms. Cathy M. Newton

Other documents before the arbitrator, but not marked as exhibits:

Report of Mediator dated April 7, 1994

Application for Appointment of an Arbitrator dated April 25, 1994

Response by Insurer dated May 27, 1994

Letter from Arbitrator Suesan Alves, dated September 12, 1994, confirming pre-hearing discussions held September 2, 1994

SCHEDULE B - AUTHORITIES

OIC decisions:

1. Vincenza Di Censo and Wellington Insurance Company, August 31, 1994, OIC File No. A-004198

2. Martin Wilson and Jevco Insurance Company, January 13, 1995, OIC File No. A-008409

3. Francis Mills and Canadian General Insurance Company, July 6, 1995, OIC File No. A-005599

4. Shirley A. Reid and Continental Insurance Company, July 27, 1995, OIC File No. A-006022

Court decisions:

1. Dale v. Commercial Union Assurance Company of Canada, [1980] I.L.R. 1-1271, aff'd [1981] I.L.R. 1-1342 (Ont. C.A.)

2. DePape v. The Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation, 1980 CanLII 3092 (MB QB), [1981] I.L.R. 1-1351 (Man. Q.B.)

3. Campbell v. Canada Life Assurance Co. (1991), 1990 CanLII 11298 (MB CA), 45 C.C.L.I. 73 (Man. C.A.)

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. 2Employer's Confirmation of Income form dated March 5, 1991, Exhibit 1, Tab A, Reports of Nancy Haston & Associates Inc. ("Haston") dated December 2, 1991 and July 10, 1992, Exhibit 1, Tab I and testimony of Ms. Pedden
3. 3Employer's Confirmation of Income form dated March 5, 1991 and Report of Dr. Perkin dated March 16, 1994, Exhibit 1, Tab A
4. 4Report of the Department of Radiology, Strathroy Middlesex General Hospital dated February 28, 1991 and Report of Dr. Perkin dated March 16, 1994, Exhibit 1, Tab A
5. 5Report of Dr. Perkin dated March 16, 1994, Exhibit 1, Tab A and Letter dated November 27, 1991 from Haston to Dr. Perkin, Exhibit 1, Tab I
6. 6Report of Dr. McCabe dated July 9, 1991, Exhibit 1, Tab A
7. 7Report of Dr. McCabe dated August 8, 1991, Exhibit 1, Tab A
8. 8Reports of Dr. Frank Walker, pain specialist, St. Joseph's Health Centre dated October 15, 1991 and December 10, 1991, Exhibit 1, Tab A and Letter dated November 27, 1991 from Haston to Dr. Perkin, Exhibit 1, Tab I
9. 9Reports of Haston dated December 2, 1991, January 17, 1992, February 17, 1992, April 3, 1992, May 12, 1992, July 10, 1992, August 21, 1992, October 1, 1992, and November 12, 1992 - Exhibit 1, Tab I; Report of Westminster Rehabilitation Management ("WRM") dated January 24, 1994 - Exhibit 1, Tab L
10. 10Clinical notes of Dr. Perkin dated April 16, 1992, Exhibit 1, Tab A and Report of Haston dated May 12, 1992, Exhibit 1, Tab I
11. 11Radiologic Consultation, MRI Cervical Spine, March 26, 1993, Exhibit 1, Tab C and Letter dated May 14, 1993 from Haston to Dr. Abdalla, Exhibit 1, Tab I
12. 12Letter dated May 14, 1993 from Haston to Dr. Abdalla, Exhibit 1, Tab I and Report of Dr. Teasell dated June 29, 1994, Exhibit 1, Tab B
13. 13Letter dated July 29, 1993 from Haston to Dr. Teasell, Exhibit 1, Tab I
14. 14Report of Dr. D.C. Taylor dated September 9, 1992, Exhibit 1, Tab D
15. 15Report of Dr. Teasell dated November 3, 1994, Exhibit 1, Tab B
16. 16Sixth Edition, St. Paul, Minn. West Publishing Co. 1990, page 1265
17. 17Dale v. Commercial Union Assurance Company of Canada, [1980] I.L.R. 1-1211, aff'd [1981] I.L.R. 1-1342 (OntC.A.), DePape v. The Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation, 1980 CanLII 3092 (MB QB), [1981] I.L.R. 1-1351 (Man. Q.B.) and Campbell v. Canada Life Assurance Co. (1991), 45 C.C.L.I. 13 (Man. C.A.)
18. 18Report of Ms. Newton dated January 24, 1994, Exhibit 1, Tab L
19. 19Letter dated February 18, 1994 from WRM to Dr. Perkin, Exhibit 1, Tab L
20. 20Report of Dr. Smith dated May 30, 1994, Exhibit 1, Tab H
21. 21Report of Dr. Teasell dated November 3, 1994, Exhibit 1, Tab B
22. 22Letter from Haston to Dr. Teasell dated July 29, 1993, Exhibit 1, Tab I