4 total
The court granted an application under the Arbitration Act to compel a non-party police force to disclose investigation records for a private insurance arbitration.
Royal and SunAlliance (RSA) brought a motion seeking a court order to compel the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) to disclose investigation records related to a motor vehicle accident.
These records were crucial for a private arbitration between RSA and Certas Home & Auto Insurance regarding a priority dispute over statutory accident benefits.
The arbitrator could not compel the third-party OPP.
The court, applying Section 29(4) of the Arbitration Act, 1991, determined it had the authority to order pre-hearing third-party disclosure to assist the arbitration.
Finding the evidence highly relevant, the relief non-burdensome, and consistent with efficient dispute resolution, the court granted RSA's application.
Reconsideration request dismissed; applicant cannot raise new priority dispute arguments not made at initial hearing.
The applicant sought reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision denying his claim for accident benefits at the Michigan Personal Injury Protection level.
On reconsideration, the applicant raised a new argument that he should receive benefits under his spouse's policy with a different insurer, effectively disputing priority.
The Executive Chair dismissed the request, holding that a reconsideration is not an avenue for advancing new arguments that could have been made earlier, and that the time limit to dispute priority between insurers had expired.
Application for Michigan accident benefits dismissed as Ontario insurer was not certified in Michigan.
The applicant, an Ontario resident, was injured in a motor vehicle accident in Michigan and sought to elect accident benefits under Michigan's Personal Injury Protection scheme rather than Ontario's Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule (SABS).
The respondent insurer denied the election because it was not a registered insurer under Michigan law.
The Tribunal found that the applicant did not meet the criteria to qualify as an insured in Michigan because the respondent had not filed a certification in compliance with Michigan law.
As the respondent had already paid the maximum medical and rehabilitation benefits available under the Ontario SABS, the application was dismissed.
Applicant precluded from accident benefits because her election to sue was made primarily to claim them.
The applicant, a school bus driver, was injured when her bus rolled forward and struck other vehicles.
She applied for statutory accident benefits but did not pursue a WSIB claim.
Two years later, after the insurer raised a defence under s. 59(1) of the SABS, she commenced a tort action against the bus manufacturer.
The arbitrator found that the applicant's delay in bringing the tort action and her failure to prosecute it demonstrated that her election to sue was made primarily for the purpose of claiming accident benefits.
Therefore, under s. 59(2) of the SABS, she was precluded from receiving statutory accident benefits.
