OFSCDRS 1996

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and received statutory accident benefits from the insurer.

The applicant subsequently signed a release in exchange for a lump sum settlement of $9,500.

The applicant later sought further benefits, arguing he misunderstood the duration of his entitlement and would not have signed the release had he known benefits could continue past age 65.

The insurer denied further benefits, relying on the release.

In a preliminary issue hearing, the arbitrator found no fraud, misrepresentation, or other vitiating factor to set aside the settlement.

The arbitrator concluded the applicant entered into a final and binding settlement and could not proceed to arbitration.

The applicant was awarded expenses for the preliminary hearing.

The applicant, a self-employed bricklayer, was injured in a motor vehicle accident and received weekly income benefits until the insurer terminated them.

The applicant sought reinstatement of benefits, claiming ongoing disability due to chronic neck and back pain.

The arbitrator found that while the applicant's pre-existing degenerative disc disease was aggravated by the accident, surveillance video demonstrating the applicant laying bricks showed he no longer had physical limitations preventing him from working.

The arbitrator concluded the applicant was entitled to benefits up to July 31, 1993, but failed to prove ongoing disability beyond that date.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits, including weekly income benefits and yard work expenses, following a 1991 motor vehicle accident.

The insurer had terminated weekly income benefits in 1992.

The arbitrator found that the applicant's ongoing disability was caused by a pre-existing arthritic condition and a prior 1989 accident, not the 1991 accident.

The applicant's evidence was deemed unreliable and contradictory.

The claims for weekly income benefits, yard work expenses, and a special award were dismissed.

Due to the applicant's failure to comply with production orders, disruptive behaviour at the hearing, and pursuit of a frivolous claim, the arbitrator ordered the applicant to pay the insurer's $1,000 assessment fee.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident while driving a taxicab.

He applied for statutory accident benefits from both the insurer of the taxicab and his personal automobile insurer.

The insurers disputed priority.

The arbitrator held that the applicant's personal insurer was responsible for paying the benefits, as the applicant was a named insured under his personal policy, and the priority rules under section 268 of the Insurance Act require an insured to look to their own insurer first, despite the commercial use exclusion in the personal policy.