3 total
Insurer's request for expenses denied following Applicant's withdrawal of arbitration application.
The Applicant was injured in a 2006 motor vehicle accident and applied for a non-earner benefit.
During the pre-hearing, the Applicant sought to withdraw his application on a without-costs basis, which the Insurer opposed, seeking $8,288.40 in expenses on the basis that the Applicant was driving without insurance.
The Arbitrator permitted the withdrawal and held a written expense hearing.
The Arbitrator denied the Insurer's request for expenses, finding that neither party did their due diligence, as the Insurer's defence regarding the lack of insurance only became clear later in the process, after which the Applicant reasonably sought to withdraw the claim before a hearing.
Access variation issue restored; support variation dismissal upheld.
The appellant appealed an Ontario Court of Justice order dismissing his motion to vary a prior family order after failing to comply with disclosure orders regarding financial information.
The lower court had struck the motion and dismissed it with costs due to repeated non‑compliance.
On appeal, the court held that the motion judge had discretion under Rule 14(23) to strike the claim relating to variation of support and found no palpable and overriding error in doing so.
However, relying on King v. Mongrain, the court held that greater caution is required when striking pleadings affecting a child’s interests.
Because the motion judge did not address the access variation request, the appeal was allowed in part and that issue was remitted to the Ontario Court of Justice.
Applicant awarded ongoing weekly income benefits due to chronic headaches preventing return to suitable employment.
The applicant was struck by a car while walking on a sidewalk, sustaining a head injury that resulted in chronic severe headaches.
The insurer paid weekly income benefits and medical benefits until November 1994, when it terminated benefits on the basis that the applicant was physically capable of returning to work.
The applicant applied for arbitration, seeking ongoing weekly income benefits and payment for chiropractic treatments.
The arbitrator found the applicant's subjective complaints of severe headaches to be credible and concluded that he was continuously prevented from engaging in any occupation for which he was reasonably suited, entitling him to ongoing weekly income benefits.
The arbitrator remained seized of the issue regarding the reasonableness of the chiropractic expenses due to insufficient evidence.
A post-hearing request by the insurer to reopen the proceedings to admit fresh evidence was dismissed, as the evidence could have been produced with due diligence and would not have changed the outcome.
