To book an arbitration with Vance Cooper, please contact Sandra Halkidis directly. She can be reached by e-mail at: firstname.lastname@example.org, or by telephone at: (647) 777-4031.
Priority dispute – Preliminary issues – Consideration of requirement for 90 day notice and the saving provision in subsections 3(1) and 3(2) – Consideration of one year notice requirement under section 7.
Priority dispute – Person specified in the policy as a driver of the insured automobile – Listed driver – Excluded driver endorsement
SABS, Section 3(7)(f) – Other Entity – Regular Use
Priority dispute – Spouse of the named insured – Individuals legally married but separated for 17 years – Individuals are still spouses as they were never divorced
Loss transfer – Consideration of bars to recovery – Limitations Act, 2002,section 4 – Doctrine of laches – Either preventing recovery in favour of the applicant – Interest implicitly paid by the applicant to the claimant not recoverable
Loss transfer – Application of the Fault Determination Rules – Rule 7  – Application of the ordinary rules of law in the alternative – 65/35 recovery in favour of the applicant
Priority dispute – Dependency – Financial support
Priority dispute – Matter settled after the commencement of the arbitration and following multiple pre-arbitration teleconferences – Determination that costs were payable in favour of the applicant – Determination of the quantum of costs
Priority dispute – Claimant’s bodily injury / tort claim ultimately lost by reason of WSIAT determination – Did the applicant’s failure or refusal to launch an application to WSIAT in a timely fashion or at all render its payment of statutory accident benefits the unreasonable and, therefore, not subject to indemnification
Priority dispute – Did the applicant give written notice within 90 days of receipt of a completed application for accident benefits – Applicant failed to meet burden of proof
Priority dispute – Arbitration within an arbitration – Determination as to whether the parties to an arbitration pending before Arbitrator Bialkowski came to a settlement – Onus on the party alleging settlement to prove that there was a clear eating of the minds – Each party’s position being equally plausible – Failure to meet the onus
Priority dispute – Dependency – Financial support – Applicant was 20 years of age at the time of the accident and living with her family – Determination of her earnings and income earning potential – Determination of her needs by application of LICO [low income cut off] statistics- Finding that the applicant was principally dependent for financial support
Priority dispute – Policy cancelled one month in advance of the accident – Credibility finding such that insured not believed to have posted payment prior to the termination date – Payment made by uncertified cheque, contrary to the terms of the termination letter
Priority dispute – Regular use – Vehicle available to the claimant at the time of the accident
Priority dispute – Dependency – Care – Elderly claimant residing in a retirement home for 7 years prior to the accident – Claimant not principally dependent for care on her adult daughter