3 total
The Superior Court dismissed an insurer's appeal of an arbitration decision that denied full reimbursement of accident benefits due to gross mishandling.
The appellant, Wawanesa Mutual Insurance Company, appealed an arbitrator's decision concerning a reimbursement claim against the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Fund.
Wawanesa sought reimbursement for Statutory Accident Benefits paid to an individual involved in a snowmobile accident, whose vehicle was later found to be uninsured.
The arbitrator partially denied Wawanesa's claim and ordered Wawanesa to pay the Fund's legal and administrative costs, finding that Wawanesa had grossly mishandled its adjusting responsibilities and failed to hold benefits in trust as required by SABS provisions due to a pending criminal charge.
The Superior Court of Justice dismissed Wawanesa's appeal, upholding the arbitrator's findings that there were no errors of law or palpable and overriding errors in the application of the law to the facts, including the arbitrator's discretion in awarding costs.
Estate Trustee's full indemnity costs award updated to $19,907.93 to reflect additional costs incurred.
Following a previous decision awarding the Estate Trustee full indemnity costs, the court issued this endorsement to correct the costs amount.
The court noted that further costs had been incurred and a subsequent draft order with updated costs had been filed on consent.
The Estate Trustee's full indemnity costs were updated to $19,907.93.
Estate ordered to repay family members for financial assistance based on deceased's acknowledgment and unjust enrichment.
The Estate Trustee brought a motion for directions regarding the payment of unsecured debts allegedly owed by the deceased to his son and son-in-law.
The debts arose from unpaid wages and financial assistance provided to the deceased over many years.
One of the beneficiaries opposed the payment, arguing the claims were statute-barred and lacked corroboration.
The court found that the deceased had acknowledged the debts and intended to repay them upon the sale of his property.
The court also found that the claims were not statute-barred as they were contingent loans, and alternatively, the son and son-in-law were entitled to the funds on the basis of quantum meruit and unjust enrichment.
The court ordered the debts to be paid from the estate.
