Applicant awarded $40,499.14 in arbitration expenses and disbursements following successful catastrophic impairment claim.
The Applicant sought expenses following a successful arbitration where he was found to have sustained a catastrophic impairment.
The Insurer argued the request was filed late and disputed the quantum of fees and disbursements.
The Arbitrator extended the time limit for filing the request, finding the brief delay was minimal and denying it would be an abuse of process.
The Arbitrator awarded the Applicant $40,499.14 in expenses and disbursements, noting the Insurer's conduct prolonged the hearing.
Neither party was awarded expenses for the expense hearing itself.
Applicant found catastrophically impaired following motorcycle accident; insurer ordered to pay outstanding medical and attendant care benefits.
The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident while riding his motorcycle and sought accident benefits from his insurer.
The central issue was whether the applicant suffered a catastrophic impairment under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.
The arbitrator found that the applicant sustained a 55% whole person impairment, accepting the applicant's expert evidence regarding his physical, cognitive, and psychological impairments, including routine use of a cane, sleep disturbance, and medication side effects.
The arbitrator ordered the insurer to pay outstanding medical, transportation, and attendant care benefits, along with interest.
However, the applicant's claim for a special award was dismissed, as the insurer's reliance on its own assessors, while resulting in a denial of benefits, did not constitute unreasonable behaviour.
Appeal dismissed; court upheld discretionary appointment of a single umpire for multiple insured properties.
The appellant appealed two orders appointing a single umpire under s. 128 of the Insurance Act to deal with five properties she owned.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeals, finding no error in the motion judges' exercise of discretion, noting that nothing in s. 128 prohibits appointing a single umpire for multiple properties.
