Vladislav Sorokin v. Wawanesa Mutual Insurance Company, 2002 ONFSCDRS 106

Financial Services Commission of Ontario

Neutral Citation: 2002 ONFSCDRS 106

FSCO A00-001163

BETWEEN:

VLADISLAV SOROKIN Applicant

and

WAWANESA MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY Insurer

PRE-HEARING DECISION

Before: Judith Killoran

Heard: By telephone conference call on June 17, 2002. Oral decision on June 17, 2002 with written decision to follow.

Appearances: Jadranka Cavrak for Mr. Sorokin Darrell P. March for Wawanesa Mutual Insurance Company

Issues:

The Applicant, Vladislav Sorokin, was involved in a motor vehicle accident on May 27, 2000. He applied for statutory accident benefits from Wawanesa Mutual Insurance Company ("Wawanesa"), payable under the Schedule.[1] The parties were unable to resolve their disputes through mediation, and Mr. Sorokin applied for arbitration at the Financial Services Commission of Ontario under the Insurance Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.I.8, as amended.

A pre-hearing discussion was held on February 13, 2001. The issues in dispute were identified as follows:

1. Is Mr. Sorokin entitled to receive a weekly income replacement benefit pursuant to section 4 of the Schedule after June 3, 2000 on the basis that he was entitled to start work under a legitimate contract of employment?

2. What is the amount of weekly income replacement benefit that Mr. Sorokin is entitled to receive pursuant to section 6 of the Schedule?

3. Is Mr. Sorokin entitled to receive a medical benefit for services provided by Integrated Health claimed pursuant to section 14 of the Schedule?

4. Is Mr. Sorokin entitled to payments for the cost of examinations performed by Career Navigators and for a disability certificate, pursuant to section 24 of the Schedule?

5. Is Wawanesa liable to pay a special award pursuant to subsection 282(10) of the Insurance Act because it unreasonably withheld or delayed payments to Mr. Sorokin?

6. Is either party liable to pay the other party's expenses in respect of the arbitration under subsection 282(11) of the Insurance Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.I.8?

A resumption of the pre-hearing discussion was held on June 17, 2002. I made an oral decision at the conclusion of the resumption of pre-hearing and informed the parties that I would release a written decision with reasons. The following issues were raised by the parties:

1. What is the status of the following documents which Mr. Sorokin had agreed to produce:

i) Income Tax Return for 2001

ii) Employment Records from the Liberal Newspaper

iii) List of medications from one year prior to the accident to the present

iv) Statements from any witnesses or parties relevant to the issues

v) Ambulance records

vi) Property Damage file

vii) Clinical notes and records from Career Navigators

viii) Education records from Seneca College

ix) Particulars of the claim for a special award

2. Is Wawanesa's request for Mr. Sorokin to attend an insurer's medical examination with Dr. Zeldin reasonably necessary pursuant to section 42 of the Schedule?

3. Is an adjournment of the hearing scheduled originally for July 8, 9 and 10, 2002 reasonable in the circumstances?

Result:

1. Mr. Sorokin is ordered to execute authorizations for disclosure of the records of: Career Navigators (Inc.) - Occupational Therapy Division ("Career Navigators"), in particular, those of Carmella Spano, Seneca College, two employers, Mr. Bercovitch and the Liberal Newspaper, Canada Customs and Revenue for his 2001 Income Tax Return and the Ministry of Health for the ambulance report.

2. Wawanesa's request that Mr. Sorokin attend an insurer's medical examination with Dr. Zeldin is reasonably necessary pursuant to section 42 of the Schedule. However, Wawanesa must comply with the requirements of section 42 and give reasonable notice of the examination, the benefit to which the examination relates and must make reasonable efforts to schedule the examination for a time that is convenient to Mr. Sorokin.

3. The hearing is adjourned, peremptory to both parties, from July 8, 9 and 10, 2002 to December 16, 17, 18 and 19, 2002 at the offices of the Financial Services Commission of Ontario.

EVIDENCE AND ANALYSIS:

Productions:

Mr. Sorokin had agreed to produce certain documents previously and indeed, did not make any submissions opposing disclosure of the documents in question. After hearing submissions from both parties about the