Shahen Alexanian

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a 2013 motor vehicle accident.

The respondent brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the application as an abuse of process, arguing the applicant had withdrawn an identical application and refiled it to avoid an evidentiary ruling.

The adjudicator dismissed the motion, finding no legislative restriction on withdrawing and refiling an application before a decision is rendered.

On the substantive issues, the adjudicator denied the applicant's claims for a physiotherapy treatment plan and catastrophic impairment assessments, finding the medical evidence did not support that the treatments and assessments were reasonable and necessary as a result of the accident.

The adjudicator ordered the respondent to refund $1,000 in costs the applicant had paid under a previously cancelled motion order.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that found his application for income replacement benefits was statute-barred due to the expiry of the limitation period.

The applicant argued the adjudicator erred in law by applying the wrong test for a clear and unequivocal denial, made a factual error regarding his legal representation, and failed to consider arguments on discoverability, prematurity, and estoppel.

The adjudicator dismissed the request, finding no significant errors of law or fact, nor any violation of procedural fairness, that would warrant a reconsideration.

The applicant sought income replacement benefits (IRBs) following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent insurer denied the IRBs in an Explanation of Benefits form in May 2016.

The applicant applied to the Licence Appeal Tribunal in February 2021, well past the two-year limitation period.

The Tribunal found that the respondent's denial was clear and unequivocal, validly triggering the limitation period.

The Tribunal declined to extend the limitation period under section 7 of the Licence Appeal Tribunal Act, finding no bona fide intention to appeal within the time limit, an extraordinary delay, prejudice to the respondent, and weak merits of the claim.

The application was dismissed as statute-barred.

The respondent insurer brought a preliminary issue motion seeking to restrict the applicant from disputing the denial of income replacement benefits, arguing the applicant failed to attend ten scheduled insurer examinations.

The Tribunal found that the insurer failed to comply with its obligation under s. 44(9)2.i. of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule to schedule the examinations at a convenient day, time, and location for the applicant, who was working modified duties.

As the insurer, not the applicant, failed to comply with the Schedule, the motion was dismissed and the applicant was permitted to proceed with the claim.

The applicant sought reconsideration of a preliminary issue decision that required her to attend an in-person insurer examination (IE) before advancing her application for a psychological assessment.

The applicant argued the IE should be a paper review and that the Tribunal misapplied case law.

The Executive Chair found no error, holding that the insurer's request for an in-person IE was reasonable under s. 44 of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule, and that the insured cannot dictate the identity of the IE examiner.

The request for reconsideration was denied, and the application was adjourned for 60 days to allow the IE to take place.

The applicant's representative brought a motion to withdraw as counsel due to a complete breakdown in the solicitor-client relationship.

The applicant consented to the withdrawal.

The arbitrator granted the motion to withdraw, ordered the motion record sealed due to its sensitive and potentially prejudicial nature, and directed that a different arbitrator be selected to hear the case on the merits.

The appellant sought appeal expenses of approximately $4,400 after the respondent conceded the appeal following a change in case law.

The respondent argued it should not be liable for expenses because it conceded the appeal once the new decision was released.

The Director's Delegate found the appellant was entitled to expenses based on her success, noting the respondent's actions were analogous to a withdrawal request which does not guarantee no expenses will be awarded.

The expenses were fixed at $3,750.00, slightly reduced from the claimed amount for reasonableness.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought approval for a psychiatric assessment.

The respondent insurer denied the treatment plan and requested the applicant attend an independent psychiatric examination under s. 44 of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The applicant refused to attend, arguing the insurer failed to provide adequate medical reasons.

On a preliminary issue, the Tribunal found the insurer's notice complied with s. 44.

While the applicant could be precluded from proceeding under s. 55 for non-attendance, the Tribunal exercised its discretion to adjourn the application for 60 days to allow the applicant to attend the examination, noting it would be unfair to bar the claim entirely when both parties agreed a psychiatric assessment was necessary.

The appellant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits from her insurer.

After a dispute arose, she filed for mediation but failed to attend the rescheduled mediation session.

The arbitrator dismissed her subsequent Application for Arbitration as statute-barred, finding she acted in bad faith by not attending.

On appeal, the Director's Delegate reversed the decision, holding that under the Insurance Act, mediation fails when the prescribed or agreed time expires without a settlement.

Since the time had expired and the mediator issued a report of failed mediation, the appellant was entitled to proceed to arbitration.

The applicant claimed statutory accident benefits and subsequently withdrew his application after failing to meet production timelines set in a case conference order.

The respondent brought a motion for costs, arguing the applicant's conduct was unreasonable, frivolous, vexatious, or in bad faith.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that the applicant made substantial efforts to comply with the orders and that the respondent could have consented to an adjournment request instead of opposing the withdrawal.

The Tribunal held that a withdrawal alone is rarely sufficient for a costs award.

The appellant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and applied for accident benefits, which the insurer denied.

The appellant sought mediation, but failed to attend the scheduled mediation sessions after the parties agreed to extend the time for mediation.

The mediator issued a report of failed mediation, and the appellant subsequently applied for arbitration.

The Arbitrator dismissed the application as statute-barred, finding that mediation had not failed but simply did not take place due to the appellant's non-attendance.

On appeal, the Director's Delegate reversed the decision, holding that under section 280(7) of the Insurance Act, mediation fails when the agreed time for mediation expires without a settlement, regardless of the mediator's opinion or the parties' attendance.

The application for arbitration was therefore not statute-barred.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits from the insurer.

The applicant filed an Application for Mediation, but neither party took steps to schedule it within the prescribed 60-day period, leading FSCO to close the file and deem the mediation failed.

The insurer brought a preliminary issue motion to dismiss the subsequent Application for Arbitration, arguing the applicant failed to participate in mediation in good faith.

The Arbitrator dismissed the motion, applying the Court of Appeal's decision in Hurst et al., which held that mediation fails simply upon the expiry of the 60-day prescribed time limit, regardless of the parties' subjective intentions or active participation.

The applicant sought income replacement benefits and medical benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The applicant continued to work for two years post-accident before claiming income replacement benefits.

The arbitrator found the applicant's testimony lacked credibility and noted numerous contradictions.

The arbitrator dismissed the claims, finding the applicant failed to comply with the notice requirements under section 32 of the Schedule and failed to prove a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of his employment.

The claim for medical benefits was also dismissed as the treatment plan was not shown to be reasonable or necessary.

The Applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

A mediation was scheduled but the Applicant and her representative failed to attend without excuse.

The Insurer brought a motion to permanently stay the arbitration on the basis that the Applicant failed to participate in the mediation process, a statutory precondition to arbitration under the Insurance Act.

The Arbitrator agreed, finding that the Applicant's failure to attend meant the mediation did not take place, and therefore the statutory preconditions under sections 281(1) and (2) of the Insurance Act were not met.

The application for arbitration was permanently stayed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging racial discrimination and reprisal in his dismissal from the respondent law firm.

The respondent requested dismissal of the application under section 34(11) of the Human Rights Code, arguing the applicant had an ongoing civil action for wrongful dismissal based on the same facts and seeking Code remedies.

The Tribunal found that the civil action had not been discontinued and sought remedies for Code infringement arising from the same facts.

Accordingly, the application was barred by section 34(11) and dismissed.

The applicants were injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits.

The insurer capped their medical benefits under the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and terminated the husband's income replacement benefits (IRB).

The arbitrator found that both applicants developed chronic pain, which is an aberrant physiology not contemplated by the MIG, thus removing them from the $3,500 cap.

However, the claims for specific medical benefits were dismissed for lack of evidence proving they were reasonable and necessary.

The husband was awarded his claimed IRB as his injuries caused a substantial inability to perform his pre-accident employment as a truck driver.

Expenses were awarded to the applicants.

The applicant sought expenses following an arbitration decision where she was partially successful in claiming housekeeping and home maintenance benefits.

The applicant claimed $15,537.50 in legal fees and $2,722.00 in disbursements.

The insurer argued each party should bear its own expenses.

The arbitrator considered the degree of success, settlement offers, and conduct during the proceeding under Rule 75 of the Dispute Resolution Practice Code.

Finding the applicant partially successful and the case not complex, the arbitrator awarded $3,000.00 for fees and $2,722.00 for disbursements, totaling $5,722.00.

The applicant sought to revoke an order dismissing her application for arbitration regarding statutory accident benefits.

The original order was made after she failed to attend pre-hearings and the arbitration hearing because she was out of the country.

The applicant provided evidence that she was unable to travel back to Canada due to a high-risk pregnancy and lacked the means to contact her solicitors while abroad.

The arbitrator found that this information was not reasonably available at the time of the arbitration and that the most just result was to allow the matter to proceed on its merits.

The application to revoke the dismissal order was granted, and the parties were ordered to bear their own expenses.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

After the applicant failed to attend multiple pre-hearing conferences and preliminary issue hearings, his counsel requested to be removed from the record due to an inability to contact the applicant for instructions.

The arbitrator granted the request to remove counsel and, with the consent of the insurer, dismissed the application for arbitration pursuant to Rule 68 of the Dispute Resolution Practice Code.

The applicant was injured when she fell inside a public transit bus due to sudden acceleration.

She applied for statutory accident benefits, claiming housekeeping and home maintenance benefits as well as the cost of custom orthotics, which the insurer denied.

The arbitrator found the applicant's testimony regarding her symptoms credible and supported by objective medical evidence, including an MRI showing a tear in her right wrist and an ankle effusion.

The arbitrator rejected the insurer's medical assessments, noting they failed to consider the MRI results.

The applicant was awarded housekeeping benefits at $100 per week for the initial period and $50 per week thereafter, along with the cost of the custom orthotics and interest on overdue payments.