Samia Alam

The applicant insurer sought judicial review of a director's delegate's decision upholding an arbitrator's finding that the insurer's refusal to designate the respondent as catastrophically impaired did not trigger the two-year limitation period under s. 281.1(1) of the Insurance Act.

The Divisional Court held that the standard of review was reasonableness, rejecting the insurer's argument for correctness.

The Court found the director's delegate reasonably concluded that a catastrophic impairment determination is not a benefit itself, and the insurer's denial letter did not constitute a clear and unequivocal refusal of a benefit.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The applicant, who was injured in a motor vehicle accident, sought an interim order requiring the insurer to fund a rebuttal catastrophic impairment assessment.

The insurer had already paid the $50,000 maximum in medical and rehabilitation benefits for non-catastrophic injuries.

The arbitrator found that while the applicant met the criteria for an interim expense award—raising a bona fide issue, demonstrating the expense was reasonable and necessary, and showing financial inability to pay—the request was barred by the statutory limits.

Because the cost of assessments is included in the medical and rehabilitation benefits limit under the Schedule, the arbitrator could not order the insurer to exceed the $50,000 cap.

The motion was dismissed with no order as to expenses.

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

After the respondent disappeared, his counsel moved to be removed as representative of record.

The arbitrator allowed the withdrawal without terms and declined to deem the arbitration withdrawn.

The insurer appealed, seeking to hold the former counsel liable for legal expenses and to deem the arbitration withdrawn.

The Director's Delegate rejected the appeal regarding the withdrawal of the arbitration as premature, but accepted the appeal regarding the former counsel's withdrawal and liability for expenses.

The insurer's request for a stay of the arbitrator's decision was denied.

The applicant's representative brought a motion to be removed from the record due to a breakdown in the solicitor-client relationship, having lost contact with the applicant.

The insurer opposed the motion without terms, seeking its costs of $4,900 to be paid personally by the representative firm and requesting the arbitration be deemed withdrawn.

The arbitrator granted the representative's motion to withdraw, finding a fundamental breakdown in communication.

The arbitrator declined to order costs against the representative personally, finding the representative had authority to commence the proceeding to preserve the applicant's rights and was acting in the usual course of the practice of law under s. 282(11.3) of the Insurance Act.

The arbitrator also declined to deem the arbitration withdrawn, as the applicant did not have proper notice of that request.

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

The insurer denied her claim for catastrophic impairment and terminated her income replacement benefits.

The applicant brought a motion for interim benefits, seeking funding for a catastrophic assessment rebuttal report and the reinstatement of her income replacement benefits.

The arbitrator applied a holistic approach to interim benefits and found that the applicant had a strong prima facie case.

The arbitrator held that the applicant had a vested contractual right to funding for a rebuttal report because her accident occurred before the 2010 SABS amendments eliminated that benefit.

The arbitrator ordered the insurer to pay $10,500 for rebuttal reports and to reinstate the applicant's income replacement benefits at $374.16 per week pending the final arbitration.

The applicant alleged discrimination on the basis of disability after her employment was terminated.

Following a motor vehicle accident, the applicant developed medical restrictions, and the employer accommodated her by adjusting her schedule, moving her to the day shift, and creating a custom work station.

After the applicant went on an indefinite medical leave, her physician eventually confirmed she was permanently unfit to return to work.

The Tribunal found that the employer's duty to accommodate ended when the applicant was permanently unable to fulfill the basic obligations of her employment, establishing undue hardship.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought payment of $16,896.64 for a catastrophic impairment rebuttal report submitted to the insurer after the 80-business-day limitation period under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The arbitrator found that the insurer had provided a valid determination and complete report, triggering the timeline.

However, the applicant had a reasonable excuse for the delay because her chosen occupational therapist was unavailable due to family issues, and the insurer suffered no prejudice.

The insurer was ordered to pay the full cost of the rebuttal report, plus interest.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and applied for a determination of catastrophic impairment.

The insurer denied the catastrophic impairment claim in 2007 and again in 2008 after a rebuttal report.

The insurer brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the applicant's arbitration application, arguing it was commenced beyond the two-year limitation period under section 281.1 of the Insurance Act.

The arbitrator dismissed the motion, finding that a refusal of catastrophic impairment status does not trigger the limitation period unless accompanied by a refusal of a specific benefit.

In the alternative, the 2007 refusal was equivocal because it invited a rebuttal report, meaning only the 2008 refusal could have triggered the limitation period, making the applications timely.

In multi‑action personal injury litigation involving several defendants, the court issued procedural directions to manage the proceedings efficiently.

The court ordered that the matter be case managed by the same judge and scheduled examinations for discovery of the plaintiff and the Family Law Act claimant.

Plaintiff’s counsel was directed to update productions, circulate request letters for outstanding records, and provide documents received to all defendants.

The court further directed that any motions for production under Rule 30.10 be brought by a specified deadline if responses remained outstanding.

The matter was removed from the assignment court list pending further order.