Peter Kazdan

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 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.