Sylvia Anne Haak

The applicant was involved in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits, including income replacement, attendant care, and housekeeping benefits.

The insurer denied the claims.

The arbitrator dismissed all of the applicant's claims, finding that the applicant lacked credibility and failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that he suffered a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of his employment or his housekeeping tasks.

The arbitrator also found that the applicant's wife did not sustain an economic loss to justify the attendant care and housekeeping claims.

Claims for a special award and interest were consequently dismissed.

The plaintiff brought a post‑trial motion seeking to set aside a civil jury verdict arising from a rear‑end motor vehicle collision, arguing there was no evidence to support the jury’s apportionment of liability and damages.

The jury had found both parties negligent, assigning 90% fault to the plaintiff and 10% to the defendant, and awarded damages subject to that apportionment.

The court reviewed the limited circumstances in which a trial judge may refuse to accept a jury verdict, namely where the verdict is devoid of evidentiary support or legally incapable of supporting judgment.

The court held that the plaintiff’s Highway Traffic Act conviction and the evidence presented at trial constituted some evidence capable of supporting the jury’s findings.

The motion to set aside the verdict and order a new trial or substitute judgment was dismissed.

The applicant applied for statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

After failing to attend medical examinations, pre-hearings, and failing to communicate with his counsel, the insurer brought a motion to dismiss the application and sought expenses against both the applicant and his counsel.

The applicant's counsel also brought a motion to withdraw as representative of record.

The arbitrator deemed the application withdrawn due to the applicant's failure to pursue his claim.

The applicant's counsel was permitted to withdraw and was not held personally liable for the insurer's expenses, as they acted within the normal scope of representation.

The applicant was ordered to pay $750 in expenses to the insurer.