Paul A. Brioux

The defendant insurer brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's claims for general damages, a catastrophic impairment designation, and income replacement benefits arising from a motor vehicle accident.

The court granted summary judgment dismissing the claims for general damages and catastrophic impairment, finding no evidence to support the bad faith claim and no expert evidence establishing that the plaintiff met the statutory definition of catastrophic impairment.

However, the court dismissed the motion regarding income replacement benefits, finding that conflicting medical evidence about whether the plaintiff's seizure disorder and cognitive decline were caused by the accident or a pre-existing condition created a genuine issue requiring a trial.

The applicant was injured in a motorcycle accident and suffered a severe wrist fracture and hip injury.

The insurer terminated his income replacement benefits after 104 weeks, relying on a designated assessment centre report and a transferable skills analysis suggesting he could work in alternative occupations.

The arbitrator found the insurer's vocational assessments flawed as they failed to adequately consider the applicant's physical limitations, the need for extensive retraining, and the significantly lower remuneration of the suggested jobs.

Relying on a vocational assessment obtained by the applicant, the arbitrator concluded that the applicant suffered a complete inability to engage in any employment for which he was reasonably suited by education, training, or experience.

The applicant was awarded ongoing income replacement benefits and interest.

Following an arbitration hearing where the applicant was awarded approximately $15,000 in income replacement benefits and interest, the parties made submissions on expenses.

The insurer argued the applicant had limited success and should not receive expenses.

The arbitrator found the applicant had a significant degree of success and awarded the applicant his legal expenses fixed at $2,825.55.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and claimed income replacement benefits (IRBs) from his insurer.

The parties disputed the quantum of the IRBs, specifically regarding the calculation of the applicant's self-employment income and post-accident business losses from two sole proprietorships.

The arbitrator rejected the applicant's accounting approach, which treated the two businesses as distinct and allocated all expenses to one, finding it would result in overcompensation.

The arbitrator determined the base IRB and awarded additional IRBs for post-accident losses during a reasonable six-month winding-down period for one of the businesses.

The arbitrator also awarded interest on overdue payments, finding the insurer failed to pay the established losses in a timely manner.