Peter Daniel Kazdan

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits for housekeeping and home maintenance expenses following a motor vehicle accident.

At the arbitration hearing, the applicant failed to appear, and his agent was permitted to withdraw from the record.

The arbitrator dismissed the application and ordered the applicant to pay the insurer's expenses.

Furthermore, finding that the applicant's failure to attend after knowingly putting the insurer to the expense of responding constituted an abuse of process, the arbitrator ordered the applicant to pay the insurer $3,000 for its filing fee pursuant to subsection 282(11.2) of the Insurance Act.

The appellants appealed an arbitrator's preliminary decision that deferred the determination of whether third-party representatives could be ordered to pay the insurer's arbitration expenses.

The Director's Delegate rejected the appeal as premature under Rule 51.2 of the Dispute Resolution Practice Code, finding that the arbitrator had not yet made a final order for the payment of expenses and that acknowledging the appeal would cause the parties to incur additional unrecoverable expenses.

The applicants' claims for statutory accident benefits were brought by a treatment provider and paralegal without proper authorization from the applicants.

The insurer sought expenses and an assessment, alleging abuse of process.

The arbitrator allowed Mr. Gurevich to withdraw his application without personal liability for expenses, finding that the treatment provider and representatives were the directing minds behind the abuse of process.

Ms. Gurevich's application was dismissed for failure to produce a required authorization.

The insurer was granted the option to claim its expenses from the treatment provider and representatives.

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

She signed a Full and Final Release in December 1998.

Two years later, a rehabilitation centre commenced mediation and arbitration proceedings in her name for unpaid transportation and assessment expenses.

The arbitrator held that the applicant was barred from proceeding by the clear terms of the release, which excluded the disputed expenses.

Furthermore, the claim for the assessment fee was barred by the two-year limitation period.

The arbitrator declined to find the arbitration frivolous or vexatious under s. 282(11.2) of the Insurance Act, but ordered the applicant to pay the insurer's expenses due to her lack of success and the hindrance caused by her representative's conduct.

The appellant appealed an arbitration order that denied his claim for increased income replacement benefits based on alleged self-employment income.

The appellant had no pre-accident business records and relied on undated letters from customers, mostly family and friends, to prove his income from handyman jobs.

The arbitrator found the evidence insufficient and unreliable to establish his pre-accident self-employment income.

On appeal, the Director's Delegate upheld the arbitrator's decision, finding no error of law in her assessment of the evidence and credibility.

The appeal was dismissed.

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

During an arbitration hearing on entitlement to income replacement benefits, the hearing arbitrator adjourned the matter and purportedly severed the issue of quantum to be heard by a different arbitrator.

At the subsequent hearing on quantum, the new arbitrator raised the issue of jurisdiction.

The arbitrator held that the issue of quantum was a necessary sub-issue of entitlement and could not be severed without statutory authority.

As the original hearing arbitrator remained seised of the issue, the separate hearing on quantum was declared a nullity.

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

The parties agreed on the quantum of his employment income but disputed the amount of his self-employment income from home renovations.

The applicant claimed his memory of the self-employment work was affected by a head injury sustained in the accident.

The arbitrator found that the applicant failed to provide reliable evidence or documentation to prove the amount of self-employment income he earned in the 52 weeks before the accident.

The arbitrator concluded that the applicant's Income Replacement Benefit should be calculated based solely on his employment income at the agreed rate of $81.30 per week.

The appellant appealed an arbitrator's order dismissing her application for arbitration as premature and ordering her to pay a $3,000 assessment for abuse of process.

The Director's Delegate dismissed the appeal, finding that the issues in dispute had not been mediated as required by section 281(2) of the Insurance Act.

The appellant and her counsel had been given multiple opportunities to remedy the situation but failed to do so.

The arbitrator's finding of abuse of process and the resulting assessment were amply supported by the record.

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

The insurer moved to dismiss the arbitration on the basis that the applicant had already commenced a court proceeding and had failed to mediate the issues in dispute.

The arbitrator found that the application was premature because the applicant had not sought mediation, which is a mandatory prerequisite under the Insurance Act.

The arbitration was dismissed as an abuse of process due to the applicant's counsel's repeated failure to comply with undertakings to withdraw the court action and mediate the claims.

The applicant was ordered to pay the insurer's $3,000 assessment fee and $609.37 in legal expenses.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident while a passenger in a car.

The insurer denied income replacement benefits, arguing the applicant was excluded under s. 30(2)(b) of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule because he knew or ought reasonably to have known the driver was operating the vehicle without the owner's consent.

The arbitrator found that the driver's father was the owner of the vehicle and had not consented to the driver's use.

However, the insurer failed to prove that the applicant knew or ought reasonably to have known of the lack of consent.

The exclusion did not apply, and the insurer was ordered to pay interim income replacement benefits.

The applicant was struck by a motor vehicle while walking in a pedestrian crosswalk, sustaining serious injuries.

She received statutory accident benefits, including Other Disability Benefits (ODBs), which the insurer later terminated.

At arbitration, the insurer sought an adjournment for a further medical examination, which was denied as the arbitrator lacked authority to compel attendance.

The arbitrator found the applicant was not entitled to post-104 week ODBs because she did not suffer a complete inability to carry on a normal life, as she could still engage in a substantial number of pre-accident activities.

However, the arbitrator awarded a special award of $2,750 because the insurer had unreasonably delayed pre-104 week ODB payments by applying the wrong disability test when it initially terminated benefits.