3 total
Appeal order corrected to reference the proper Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule regulation.
The Director's Delegate issued a correction to an appeal order dated March 20, 1997.
The original order incorrectly referenced the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule for accidents before January 1, 1994 (O. Reg. 672).
The corrected order substitutes the reference with Ontario Regulation 776/93, the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule for accidents on or after January 1, 1994, confirming the respondent was not injured in an 'accident' within the meaning of that regulation.
Assault following a motor vehicle collision does not constitute an 'accident' for statutory accident benefits.
The appellant insurer appealed an arbitration decision finding that the respondent was injured in an 'accident' under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.
The respondent was a passenger in a vehicle that backed into another vehicle.
The driver of the other vehicle subsequently assaulted the respondent while he was still seated in the vehicle.
The Director's Delegate allowed the appeal, finding that the assault was an intervening act and the injuries were not caused, directly or indirectly, by the use or operation of an automobile.
The respondent was therefore not entitled to accident benefits.
Appeal and revocation requests regarding a settlement order and expenses decision dismissed.
The appellant sought to appeal or revoke a settlement order and an arbitrator's decision on expenses arising from a statutory accident benefits dispute.
The Director of Arbitrations refused to extend the time to appeal the settlement order, finding no apparent grounds as the consent order and release were clear and the appellant had acted in accordance with them.
The request to revoke the settlement order was dismissed because there was no material change in circumstances or error.
The appeal of the arbitrator's decision on expenses was also dismissed, as the arbitrator had sufficient evidence to support her findings of fact and properly exercised her discretion in determining reasonable expenses.
The appellant's request for expenses of the proceedings was denied.