Peter Brian Cozzi

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and claimed statutory accident benefits from two insurers, Royal and Coseco.

The insurers disputed priority.

The arbitrator determined that Ontario Regulation 283/95, which mandates private arbitration for priority disputes, does not apply retroactively to this case.

The arbitrator found that the applicant had chosen Coseco by submitting her first completed application for benefits to them, and therefore Coseco was liable to pay her claims.

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

The insurer terminated weekly income benefits, and the applicant sought ongoing income benefits, supplementary medical and rehabilitation benefits, care benefits, and a special award.

The insurer claimed a repayment of overpaid benefits due to an alleged calculation error and the applicant's receipt of CPP disability benefits.

The arbitrator found that the applicant failed to establish that her ongoing back problems were caused by the accident, given her pre-existing degenerative disc disease and prior injuries.

Consequently, claims for ongoing income, medical, and care benefits were dismissed.

The arbitrator determined the correct weekly income benefit rate and ordered the applicant to repay $16,540.54 for overlapping CPP benefits, but denied the insurer's claim for repayment based on 'error,' finding the insurer had deliberately chosen its calculation method.

The applicant's claims for a special award and arbitration expenses were dismissed.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and received statutory accident benefits, which were later terminated by the insurer.

The applicant sought arbitration for weekly income benefits under section 12 or, alternatively, section 13 of the Schedule.

The arbitrator found that the applicant, a 71-year-old retiree who occasionally took odd jobs, was not employed, self-employed, or unemployed within the meaning of section 12 at the time of the accident.

Furthermore, the applicant failed to establish a substantial inability to perform his essential tasks under section 13.

The insurer was awarded repayment of $8,606 in overpaid benefits, while the applicant was awarded his arbitration expenses.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and claimed weekly income benefits based on an alleged pre-accident job offer.

At a preliminary hearing, the applicant argued that the insurer was precluded from contesting the legitimacy of the job offer because the issue had been settled at a prior mediation.

The arbitrator found that the mediation resulted in a procedural agreement to investigate the claim further and pay a temporary amount, rather than a binding settlement conceding the legitimacy of the job offer.

The insurer was therefore not precluded from contesting the issue.