Taran Hoogsteen

The applicant was involved in a motor vehicle accident and notified the insurer, but failed to submit his completed Application for Accident Benefits (OCF-1) until more than three years later.

The insurer argued the claim was time-barred under section 32(5) of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had a reasonable explanation for the delay, as the insurer's communications failed to clearly convey the consequences of not submitting the form within 30 days.

The Tribunal held that the insurer's ambiguous language led the applicant to believe his claims would be considered whenever the form was submitted, and the resulting prejudice to the insurer was caused by its own actions.

The applicant was permitted to proceed with his claim.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits after being assaulted by the driver of a vehicle and subsequently pushed out.

The respondent denied benefits on the basis that the incident did not meet the definition of an 'accident' under s. 3(1) of the Schedule.

The Tribunal applied the two-part test from Caughy and found that while the purpose test was met, the causation test was not.

The Tribunal concluded that the applicant's injuries were directly caused by an intervening act—the various assaults perpetrated by the driver—rather than the use or operation of the automobile.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant, a municipal councillor, sought judicial review of an Integrity Commissioner's decision finding he breached the municipal Code of Conduct by disclosing confidential and solicitor-client privileged information to external legal counsel.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the Integrity Commissioner's decision was reasonable because the applicant lacked authority to waive the municipality's privilege or disclose confidential procurement documents.

The court also found no breach of procedural fairness during the investigation.