Renee Vinett

The appellant insurer sought to withdraw its appeal of an arbitrator's preliminary decisions regarding third-party production and catastrophic impairment, following a relevant Court of Appeal decision.

The respondent insured consented to the withdrawal but sought legal expenses as a condition.

The Director's Delegate permitted the withdrawal and ordered the appellant to pay $6,250 in legal expenses to the respondent, finding that the respondent had been successful in resisting an earlier stay request and that the appellant's conduct warranted an award of costs.

Following a preliminary hearing where the applicant was found to be catastrophically impaired, the applicant sought arbitration expenses of $144,279.21.

The insurer disputed the amount, arguing the dockets were vague, excessive, and included non-compensable items.

The arbitrator agreed with the insurer's critique, noting the applicant's counsel unnecessarily lengthened the hearing by cross-examining the insurer's experts whose reports were already deficient, and provided superficial submissions.

Applying the principles of reasonableness and global assessment, the arbitrator fixed the applicant's expenses at $60,000 inclusive of taxes.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and applied for statutory accident benefits, claiming he was catastrophically impaired due to mental and behavioural disorders.

The insurer disputed the claim.

Following a lengthy arbitration hearing, the arbitrator found the applicant and his treating professionals to be highly credible, detailing a severe deterioration in his mental health, including major depression and suicidal ideation.

The arbitrator rejected the insurer's expert evidence as biased and superficial.

Applying the AMA Guides, the arbitrator concluded the applicant suffered marked impairments in multiple domains of functioning and was therefore catastrophically impaired pursuant to clause 2(1.2)(g) of the Schedule.

The insurer brought a motion for a third party production order to obtain unredacted records from the Children's Aid Society regarding the applicant's children.

The motion was brought on the eve of the arbitration hearing without complying with the notice and service requirements of Rule 67 of the Dispute Resolution Practice Code.

The arbitrator dismissed the motion, finding it to be frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process, as the insurer failed to provide any valid basis or extraordinary circumstances for the late request.