Human Rights - OFSCDRS

The appellant insurer appealed an arbitrator's preliminary decision finding that the definition of 'minor injury' and the requirement for documented pre-existing conditions in the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule (SABS) violated section 15 of the Charter.

The Director's Delegate allowed the appeal, holding that the arbitrator erred by deciding the constitutional questions in a factual vacuum before determining whether the claimant actually suffered from chronic pain or had an undocumented pre-existing condition.

The arbitrator's order was rescinded, and the matter was remitted to arbitration for a determination on the merits of the claim for a psychological assessment.

The appellant appealed an arbitrator's decision denying an adjournment request, permitting the withdrawal of her application for accident benefits, and awarding no costs.

The appellant argued the arbitrator failed to accommodate her under the Human Rights Code, failed to act on the insurer's non-compliance with benefit information requirements, and erred in denying costs.

The Director's Delegate dismissed the appeal, finding no error of law in the arbitrator's handling of the accommodation request, noting the benefit information issue was obiter dicta, and upholding the costs determination.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and applied for a non-earner benefit.

A preliminary issue hearing was held to determine whether section 12(5) of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule, which applies age distinctions to non-earner benefits, is insulated from review under the Human Rights Code.

The arbitrator applied the modern approach to statutory interpretation and found that the Legislature intended the age distinctions in sections 8 and 9 to apply to non-earner benefits under section 12(5).

Furthermore, section 22 of the Human Rights Code protects age discrimination in automobile insurance contracts.

The arbitrator concluded that section 12(5) is insulated from review under the Human Rights Code and ordered the parties to bear their own expenses.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought accident benefits.

The insurer denied certain benefits on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG), which caps medical and rehabilitation benefits at $3,500.

The applicant brought a preliminary issue hearing challenging the constitutionality of the MIG under the Charter.

The arbitrator found that the MIG's inclusion of 'clinically associated sequelae' and its requirement that pre-existing conditions be documented before the accident discriminated against individuals with chronic pain and undocumented pre-existing conditions, violating section 15(1) of the Charter.

The infringement was not justified under section 1.

The arbitrator read down the definition of 'clinically associated sequelae' to exclude chronic pain and severed the requirement for pre-accident documentation.

The appellant, who was four years old at the time of a 1996 motor vehicle accident, appealed an arbitrator's decision that section 20.1 of the SABS-1994 precluded him from claiming Loss of Earning Capacity Benefits (LECBs).

The appellant also challenged the constitutionality of section 20.1 under section 15(1) of the Charter, arguing it discriminated based on age.

The Director's Delegate upheld the arbitrator's decision, finding that section 20.1 unambiguously barred the claim because the appellant had not commenced a proceeding regarding educational disability benefits before March 1, 2006.

The Delegate also agreed that section 20.1 did not violate the Charter, as it did not create a distinction based on age but rather on the circumstances existing as of February 28, 2006.

The applicant, who was four years old at the time of a 1996 motor vehicle accident, sought Loss of Earning Capacity Benefits (LECBs) under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The insurer argued that section 20.1 of the Schedule, introduced in 2006, barred the claim because the applicant had not met the prerequisite conditions before March 1, 2006.

The applicant argued that section 20.1 was merely procedural or, alternatively, that it violated his section 15 Charter rights by discriminating on the basis of age, as he was too young to have met the prerequisites.

The arbitrator held that section 20.1 substantively eliminated the right to LECBs for those who did not meet the conditions and found no Charter violation, concluding that the provision's effect was based on the circumstances existing as of February 28, 2006, rather than age, and did not perpetuate prejudice or stereotyping.

The applicant claimed accident benefits following a rear-end collision.

The insurer denied the claim, alleging the accident was staged and citing suspicious factors including the parties' shared ethnic background.

At arbitration, both parties presented accident reconstruction experts whose evidence the arbitrator rejected as unreliable.

However, based on the consistent testimony of the applicant and his passenger, supported by physical evidence such as paint transfer and airbag deployment, the arbitrator found the accident did occur.

The applicant's claim for a special award under s. 282(10) of the Insurance Act was dismissed; although the arbitrator condemned the insurer's consideration of race as a suspicious factor, he found the insurer had principally and reasonably relied on its expert's opinion to deny the claim.

The appellant, a Mexican citizen visiting Ontario on a student visa, was injured in a motor vehicle accident in Quebec while a passenger in an Ontario-insured rental van.

She claimed statutory accident benefits from the van's insurer.

The insurer denied the claim on the basis that she was not an 'insured person' because she was not a 'resident of Ontario' as required for out-of-province accidents.

The arbitrator agreed and dismissed her claim.

On appeal, the Director's Delegate upheld the arbitrator's finding that the appellant's stay in Ontario lacked the permanence required to establish residency.

The Delegate also rejected arguments that the appellant was covered under an extended definition in the policy or that the residency requirement violated her rights under s. 7 or s. 15 of the Charter.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and applied for statutory accident benefits.

The insurer denied the application on the basis that the applicant failed to attend insurer's examinations and a designated assessment centre (DAC) evaluation.

The applicant, a French-speaking person, refused to attend the examinations and evaluations because they were to be conducted with the assistance of interpreters rather than by French-speaking professionals.

On a preliminary issue, the arbitrator held that the applicant was not entitled to French-speaking examiners for the insurer's examinations, as the insurer is not a government agency bound by the French Language Services Act.

Consequently, the applicant was precluded from proceeding to arbitration until he made himself available for those examinations.

Regarding the DAC evaluations, the arbitrator deferred the decision to allow the Minister's Committee on the Designated Assessment Centre System and the Superintendent of Financial Services to make submissions on whether DACs are government agencies subject to the French Language Services Act.