Robert Karl Deutschmann

The court approved a $1.2 million accident benefits settlement for a person under disability but significantly reduced counsel's contingency fees from 15% to 5% of the settlement amount.

The judge found the higher fee unreasonable given the low legal complexity and minimal risk assumed by the solicitor, emphasizing the court's parens patriae jurisdiction to protect the disabled client's best interests.

A complaint was filed against a municipal councillor alleging he posted a racial slur on his Facebook account.

The councillor claimed his account and computer were hacked.

During the investigation, the councillor destroyed his computer hard drive and deleted his Facebook account.

The Integrity Commissioner found the hacking claim improbable based on technical and behavioural evidence, and applied the doctrine of spoliation to draw an adverse inference against the councillor.

The Commissioner concluded the councillor made the post and intentionally destroyed evidence, recommending a 32-day suspension of remuneration.

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

The insurer denied the claim, arguing the applicant's policy had been cancelled for non-payment of premiums prior to the accident.

The arbitrator found that the insurer's cancellation notice was defective because it failed to provide a cash payment option as required by section 11(1.3) of O. Reg. 777/93.

As a result, the policy was not validly cancelled, and the applicant was not excluded from receiving benefits under section 31(1)(a) of the Schedule.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and received income replacement benefits (IRBs) until they were terminated by the insurer.

More than two years after the termination, the applicant sought reinstatement of IRBs, arguing that her condition had deteriorated.

The insurer denied the request on the basis that the claim was statute-barred.

The arbitrator held that the applicant could not avoid the limitation period by submitting a new request for IRBs based on a subsequent deterioration in her condition.

The claim was found to be statute-barred under section 281.1 of the Insurance Act and section 51 of the Schedule.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and applied for enhanced statutory accident benefits, claiming a catastrophic impairment based on Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) scores of 9 or less.

The insurer disputed the scores, relying on a neurologist's opinion that the first responders erred in their assessments because the applicant was combative.

The arbitrator rejected the neurologist's theoretical opinion, preferring the contemporaneous assessments of the trained paramedics and emergency room staff.

The arbitrator concluded the applicant suffered a catastrophic impairment.