Other Tribunals - OFSCDRS

The insurer, T.T.C. Insurance Company Limited, brought a motion for the production of the Toronto Police Service's investigation file regarding a motor vehicle accident involving the deceased applicant.

The insurer denied statutory accident benefits on the basis that the deceased was not struck by a streetcar, and sought the police file to assess liability and determine the cause of injuries.

Neither the Estate nor the Toronto Police Service appeared at the motion.

The Arbitrator found that the requirements of Rule 67.7 of the Dispute Resolution Practice Code were met and ordered the Toronto Police Service to disclose its investigation file to the insurer.

The parties were ordered to bear their own expenses for the motion.

During an arbitration hearing for statutory accident benefits, the applicant became hysterical and allegedly disclosed a settlement offer.

The insurer brought a motion for a mistrial and requested the arbitrator recuse himself, arguing the disclosure and the arbitrator's decision to remain in the room during the outburst compromised his impartiality.

The arbitrator dismissed the motion, finding that professional adjudicators are capable of disregarding irrelevant settlement information and that remaining in the room to ensure safety did not create a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The Applicant applied for arbitration regarding statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

Over a period of two and a half years, the Applicant failed to meaningfully participate in the process, missing multiple pre-hearing discussions and ultimately hanging up on the Arbitrator during a rescheduled telephone conference.

The Arbitrator found the Applicant's conduct to be high-handed, contemptuous of the arbitration process, and indicative of an abandonment of the application.

The application was dismissed as vexatious pursuant to Rule 68 of the Dispute Resolution Practice Code.

No costs were awarded.

The representative for the insured appealed an arbitration order requiring him to personally pay the insurer's expenses.

The appeal was dismissed.

The insurer sought its appeal expenses of $3,918.77 against the representative personally.

The representative argued the expenses should be limited to Small Claims Court levels.

The Director's Delegate rejected this argument, finding that arbitration expenses are governed by the Dispute Resolution Practice Code and the expense regulation, not Small Claims Court rules.

The Director's Delegate ordered the representative to personally pay the insurer's appeal expenses fixed at $3,300.

The appellants brought a motion to compel the respondent insurer to pay for the transcripts of the arbitration hearing, arguing they were impecunious and the transcripts were necessary for their appeal.

The Director's Delegate dismissed the motion, finding that while the appellants could not afford the transcripts, they failed to demonstrate that the transcripts were necessary for the conduct of the appeal, which is restricted to questions of law, or that they would be unable to proceed without them.

The applicant moved to exclude expert reports obtained by the insurer from Brigham & Associates Inc. via a 'paper review' of his medical records, arguing the insurer breached his privacy rights and the PIPED Act by disclosing his records without consent.

The Arbitrator dismissed the motion, finding that the insurer did not breach the Schedule or the applicant's reasonable expectation of privacy, as the records were disclosed to the insurer's agent for the purpose of responding to the application.

The Arbitrator also found no breach of the PIPED Act, applying the personal purposes exemption, and held that the reports were admissible.

The insurer was not required to fund rebuttal reports.

The insurer brought a motion for the production of Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) records relating to the applicant's ATV accident.

The applicant consented to the release, but the OPP refused to produce the records without a court order, citing the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The arbitrator held that under section 22(1) of the Insurance Act and the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, an arbitrator has the jurisdiction to order third-party production.

Finding the records relevant and necessary, the arbitrator ordered the OPP to produce the records subject to agreed redactions.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

After his representatives withdrew from the record, the applicant failed to attend the arbitration hearing.

As no evidence was adduced in support of the application, the arbitrator dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant was ordered to pay the insurer's arbitration expenses in the amount of $978.80.

The Applicant applied for statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The parties reached a settlement at a pre-hearing, and the Applicant cashed the settlement cheque but failed to execute the settlement documents.

The Applicant and his representative subsequently failed to attend a resumed pre-hearing or respond to communications from the Commission.

The Insurer requested that the arbitration be dismissed.

The Arbitrator found that the Applicant had abandoned the arbitration and dismissed the proceeding as frivolous, vexatious, and commenced in bad faith pursuant to Rule 68.1 of the Dispute Resolution Practice Code.

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

After the insurer terminated benefits, the applicant applied for arbitration.

The applicant failed to communicate with his counsel, respond to production requests, or attend the pre-hearing, leading his counsel to withdraw.

The insurer brought a preliminary issue hearing to dismiss the arbitration as frivolous and vexatious.

The applicant failed to attend the hearing despite receiving proper notice.

The arbitrator found the applicant completely failed in his obligations to support his claim and dismissed the arbitration as frivolous and vexatious.

The applicant applied for statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

After failing to resolve disputes through mediation, the applicant applied for arbitration.

The insurer brought a motion to dismiss the arbitration without a hearing because the applicant failed to comply with a previous order and did not attend the pre-hearing.

The arbitrator found the proceeding to be frivolous and commenced in bad faith, dismissing the arbitration and awarding reasonable expenses to the insurer.

The insurer sought an assessment of expenses after an arbitrator previously ordered a paralegal to personally pay the insurer's expenses for commencing an unauthorized arbitration on behalf of the applicant.

The insurer claimed expenses on a substantial indemnity basis.

The arbitrator found that she lacked the authority to award expenses on a substantial indemnity basis under the Insurance Act or the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, as costs are limited to Legal Aid rates under the Dispute Resolution Practice Code.

The insurer's expenses were assessed and ordered to be paid by the paralegal in the amount of $2,910.41.

The applicant's solicitors brought a motion to be removed from the record after losing contact with their client.

The insurer opposed the motion and sought an order for expenses against the solicitors personally, arguing they filed the application without authorization and that it was frivolous.

The arbitrator granted the motion to remove the solicitors, finding they made reasonable efforts to contact the client.

The arbitrator dismissed the insurer's request for expenses, noting that lack of authority is excluded as grounds for personal costs against a solicitor under the Insurance Act, and the application could not be deemed frivolous without assessing its merits.

The applicant's legal representative brought a motion to withdraw as counsel of record due to a breakdown in the solicitor-client relationship.

The applicant and the insurer opposed the motion.

The insurer also sought details regarding the breakdown.

The arbitrator granted the motion to withdraw, finding a breakdown had occurred, and denied the insurer's request for details to protect solicitor-client privilege.

Parties were ordered to bear their own costs.

At a pre-hearing discussion, the applicant requested a hearing date within four to six months due to financial hardship.

Counsel for the insurer requested a delay of eleven months due to his unavailability.

The arbitrator ruled that the hearing must proceed within the standard four to six month timeframe, citing the applicant's financial urgency, the readiness of the case, and institutional policy reasons against prolonged delays.

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

After failing to appear at multiple pre-hearing discussions and the arbitration hearing, and failing to communicate with his representative or the Commission, the insurer requested that the claims be deemed withdrawn.

The arbitrator deemed the claims withdrawn due to the applicant's failure to pursue them.

The arbitrator awarded the insurer $1,000 in expenses but denied the request for reimbursement of the $3,000 assessment fee, as it is not a recoverable expense under the Expense Regulation.

Following a decision dismissing the applicant's claim for statutory accident benefits for overseas airline tickets, the insurer sought its expenses for the arbitration proceeding.

The arbitrator applied the criteria under section 12(2) of Ontario Regulation 664 and found that the insurer was completely successful.

The arbitrator rejected the applicant's argument that her modest means should preclude a costs award, noting that only the prescribed criteria could be considered.

The insurer was awarded $1,875.29 in expenses.

The applicant's counsel brought a motion to be removed as solicitors of record for the applicant in an upcoming arbitration.

Counsel submitted that they had lost contact with the applicant despite multiple attempts to reach him at his last known address and telephone numbers, including a number in New Jersey.

The insurer did not object to the withdrawal but requested a peremptory notice of hearing.

The arbitrator found a breakdown in the solicitor-client relationship and permitted the firm to withdraw without terms.

The request for a peremptory notice was denied as unnecessary.

The applicant's law firm brought a motion to withdraw as her representative, citing an inability to contact her to obtain instructions following a pre-hearing settlement offer.

The arbitrator dismissed the motion, noting that the firm failed to provide a supporting affidavit detailing its attempts to contact the client over the preceding months, relying instead only on recent affidavits of attempted service.

The dismissal was without prejudice to a further motion on better material, and the arbitration hearing dates were adjourned to allow further attempts to contact the applicant.

The applicant brought a motion for a third-party production order for cell phone records and an adjournment of the arbitration hearing due to a recent ankle injury.

The arbitrator dismissed the request for third-party production because the applicant failed to comply with the mandatory procedural requirements under Rule 67 of the Dispute Resolution Practice Code.

However, the arbitrator granted the adjournment request on a peremptory basis, subject to conditions including the payment of $150 in fixed costs to the insurer for the last-minute motion.