Indexed as: Rano v. Commercial Union Assurance Co. Between: Teresa Rano, applicant, and Commercial Union Assurance Company, insurer
|
|
- Giles Parrish
- 6 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 Page 1 Indexed as: Rano v. Commercial Union Assurance Co. Between: Teresa Rano, applicant, and Commercial Union Assurance Company, insurer [1999] O.F.S.C.I.D. No. 134 File No. FSCO A Ontario Financial Services Commission Dirk VanderBent, Arbitrator July 30, 1999 (21 paras.) Appearances: Ted Charney, for the applicant. Walter Scodeller, for the insurer. Issues: DECISION ON A PRELIMINARY ISSUE 1 The Applicant, Teresa Rano, was injured in a motor vehicle accident on December 30, She applied for and received statutory accident benefits from Commercial Union Assurance Company ("Commercial Union"), payable under the Schedule. 1 The parties were unable to resolve their disputes through mediation, and Mrs. Rano applied for arbitration at the Financial Services Commission of Ontario under the Insurance Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. I.8, as amended. 2 The preliminary issues are: 1. Is Mrs. Rano permitted to withdraw her application for arbitration?
2 Page 2 2. If permission is granted, is either party entitled to their expenses of this arbitration proceeding as a condition of the withdrawal? Result: 3 EVIDENCE AND ANALYSIS: Facts: 1. Mrs. Rano is permitted to withdraw her Application for Arbitration. 2. Neither party is entitled to their expenses. 4 The relevant facts are as follows. Mrs. Rano was involved in a motor vehicle accident on December 30, At that time, she was working as a driver delivering automotive parts for a parts dealership. She applied for and began receiving income replacement benefits. On January 27, 1997, Commercial Union received correspondence from Mrs. Rano's employer indicating that, as of November 30, 1996, Mrs. Rano drove her own vehicle when delivering parts. A dispute then arose respecting payment of housekeeping and acupuncture expenses. Mrs. Rano filed an Application for Arbitration with the Commission on June 9, 1997, requesting adjudication of her claims for these expenses. 5 Commercial Union subsequently terminated payment of Mrs. Rano's income replacement benefits in August 1997, on the basis that she no longer satisfied the test for disability. A pre-hearing discussion was held on December 8, 1997, at which time Mrs. Rano's claim for income replacement benefits was added to the list of claims referred for adjudication. In April 1998, Commercial Union first raised a defence under subsection 30(2) of the Schedule, asserting that Mrs. Rano had intentionally failed to notify Commercial Union of a change in the risk material to the contract. Commercial Union maintains that Mrs. Rano never provided notification that she was using her vehicle in the course of her employment. Mrs. Rano opposed Commercial Union's request to add this claim for adjudication at the hearing. The issue was argued before me on October 8, 1998, and I granted Commercial Union's request to refer this issue for adjudication. At that time, Mrs. Rano's counsel argued that if the Insurer was successful in establishing that the exclusion under subsection 30(2) applied, Mrs. Rano would have no recourse but to claim relief from forfeiture pursuant to section 129 of the Insurance Act. Mrs. Rano's counsel indicated that she would be forced to withdraw her application for arbitration and commence a civil proceeding in order to obtain this relief, as an arbitrator does not have jurisdiction to grant relief from forfeiture. On December 30, 1998, Mrs. Rano issued an action in the Ontario Court (General Division), in which she named Commercial Union as a defendant, and requested that her claims for accident benefits be adjudicated by the court. Analysis:
3 Page 3 6 If Commercial Union is successful in establishing its defence, Mrs. Rano would be excluded from receiving weekly benefits, and housekeeping expenses, pursuant to subsection 30(2) of the Schedule. Mrs. Rano argues that the relief of forfeiture provision under section 129 of the Insurance Act can be applied, if it is found that it would be inequitable that she should be excluded from receiving benefits. Section 129 provides: Relief from forfeiture 129. Where there has been imperfect compliance with a statutory condition as to the proof of loss to be given by the insured or other matter or thing required to be done or omitted by the insured with respect to the loss and a consequent forfeiture or avoidance of the insurance in whole or in part and the court considers it inequitable that the insurance should be forfeited or avoided on that ground, the court may relieve against the forfeiture or avoidance on such terms as it considers just. 7 Mrs. Rano reiterates that she has no choice but to withdraw her application for arbitration and proceed with the civil action in order to obtain this relief, as an arbitrator does not have jurisdiction to grant relief from forfeiture. 8 Commercial Union argues that their claim under subsection 30(2)(a) of the Schedule was properly raised within this arbitration proceeding. This section provides: 30(2) The insurer is not required to pay an income replacement benefit, a non-earner benefit or a benefit under section 20, 21 or 22,... (a) in respect of any person... who intentionally failed to notify the insurer of a change in the risk material to the contract; 9 This subsection only applies to an insured person who intentionally fails to notify the insurer. Commercial Union argues that the relief of forfeiture provision does not apply to intentional acts. Accordingly, there is no need to redirect the issues in dispute before the courts, and therefore there is no reason to justify withdrawal of the arbitration proceeding. Permission to withdraw: 10 While Commercial Union argues that this legal remedy is not available at all, counsel candidly agreed with my observation that I am without jurisdiction to decide this issue. Only a court can determine whether relief from forfeiture is an available remedy in the circumstances of this case. I might have decided differently if this question had been conclusively addressed by the courts.
4 Page 4 11 However, counsel agreed that there was no definitive case law on point. Commercial Union referred me to one decision where a trial level court has held that relief from forfeiture is not available to remedy acts or omissions which occurred prior to a loss. 2 However, this case did not address an exclusion clause under one of the accident benefit Schedules, nor is it necessarily binding on other judges. Consequently, Mrs. Rano has an arguable issue to advance, which I cannot adjudicate. Accordingly, I granted her permission to withdraw her disputes from the arbitration process. In further support of my conclusion, I note that arbitrators have not denied permission to withdraw where the request was only motivated by the desire to obtain a perceived tactical advantage by advancing the claim in court. Arbitrator McMahon provided a useful summary of the decisions in this area in Richard and Lombard General Insurance Company of Canada. 3 He noted that applicants have been permitted to withdraw from the arbitration process in favour of a court proceeding, even at a very late stage. 12 While Mrs. Rano made her request to withdraw just a few weeks prior to the hearing, it must be noted that Commercial Union did not raise their exclusion clause defence until several months after the initial pre-hearing conference, and the addition of this issue was not formally resolved until my order was issued in October In addition, there was a workers' compensation issue which had the potential of obviating the need to proceed with the arbitration, and this issue was not resolved until a hearing was conducted by a workers' safety appeals tribunal in early Accordingly, I find that Mrs. Rano's request to withdraw, although late, was not unreasonably late given the circumstances of this case. 13 Finally, I note that Mrs. Rano's civil proceeding includes a tort action arising from the same accident, and will share related questions. As Arbitrator McMahon observed in Richard, a court action comprising both claims would be more comprehensive, a factor frequently identified by the courts on applications to stay one proceeding in favour of another. Conditions which attach to the withdrawal: 14 Both parties claimed payment of their expenses to date in proceeding with this arbitration, as a condition of the withdrawal. For reasons cited below, I have denied both claims. 15 I again refer to Arbitrator McMahon's decision in Richard 4 In that case, he ordered that the insured person pay the insurer's expenses in proceeding with the arbitration, but this did not include the insurer's filing fee. He noted that the claim is not being abandoned altogether, where a civil proceeding had been initiated. He found that time spent by counsel in conducting the aborted arbitration proceeding were costs thrown away in the sense that they were avoidable, and a complete waste. He further observed that if expenses were not dealt with at the time of the withdrawal, the insurer would have no means of recouping them. He found that this was a matter related to the proceeding which was relevant to the issue of expenses and justified an award in favour of the insurer. 16 Arbitrator McMahon also addressed the issue of whether expenses thrown away should also
5 Page 5 include the substantial filing fee paid by the insurer. He concluded that the general power to award expenses under Rule 73 of the Commission's Dispute Resolution Code (the Code) did not include the power to award this specific expense, as the filing fee was not included in the schedule of allowable expenses. He also considered whether the filing fee could be recouped under Rule 67.3(c) [award of the insurer's filing fee where permission to withdraw has been granted], or pursuant to section 282(11.2) of the Insurance Act [general statutory power to award repayment where there has been an abuse of process, or the proceeding is frivolous or vexatious]. He concluded that Rule 67.3(c) must be read so as to be harmonious with the Insurance Act, and cannot expand the basis for awarding the insurer's filing fee beyond the criteria set forth in section 282(11.2). When applying section 282(11.2) to award the filing fee as a condition of withdrawal, he concluded that he must look to the circumstances which existed at the time the Application for Arbitration was filed, not when the withdrawal request was advanced. He stated that a subsequent decision to withdraw an application is insufficient to trigger the section, unless it is part of a larger course of improper conduct tied to the commencement of the arbitration. 17 I agree with Arbitrator McMahon' analysis and conclusions. However, applying these principles to the somewhat unique circumstances of this case, does not produce the same result. Mrs. Rano's claim for expenses: 18 I first note that, in Richard, the insured person did not claim expenses. However, an arbitrator does have authority to award expenses to either party, pursuant to Rule 67.3(c) of the Code. In order to exercise my discretion in favour of Mrs. Rano, I find that she must establish that the Insurer's conduct has unnecessarily prompted the need to withdraw the arbitration, thereby resulting in costs thrown away which could have been reasonably avoided. 19 Mrs. Rano argues that she should be entitled to an award of expenses in her favour, because Commercial Union did not raise its exclusion clause defence until four months after the initial pre-hearing conference. She emphasizes that Commercial Union received the employer's confirmation letter (which alerted Commercial Union to this defence) in January 1997, long before she commenced her Application for Arbitration. She asserts that she could have avoided expenses in pursuing arbitration, if she had known that she would be facing this defence. Because Commercial Union has insisted in pursuing this defence, she has been forced to abandon the arbitration process and pursue a civil proceeding. While there is some merit to these submissions, they ignore two important considerations. First, I received no evidence to suggest that the basic facts giving rise to the exclusion defence were not within Mrs. Rano's possession at the time she added her claim for income replacement benefits. Consequently, she certainly should have considered the potential that this defence might be raised. Secondly, while I accept that the Insurer's decision to pursue the exclusion defence has prompted her withdrawal request, this defence is supported by some evidence, and is not based on mere allegation. I do not find that Commercial Union's conduct in raising a legitimate defence can be properly characterized as unnecessarily prompting the need for this withdrawal. Mrs. Rano argued that she should not face an adverse award of expenses, because
6 Page 6 her decision to advance a claim for relief from forfeiture was reasonable. In my view, Commercial Union's decision to assert its exclusion defence is just as reasonable, and cannot justify an award of expenses in favour of Mrs. Rano. Insurer's claim for expenses: 20 There is no evidence to suggest that Mrs. Rano's decision to pursue a claim for relief from forfeiture is either frivolous, vexatious or an abuse of process. There was no suggestion that the initiation of her Application for Arbitration was unreasonable. However, Commercial Union argued that the inquiry into this aspect of the claim should focus on the circumstances at the time the withdrawal request is made. I have not accepted this submission, adopting instead Arbitrator McMahon's analysis on this issue. Even if I did, Mrs. Rano's decision to raise a claim for relief from forfeiture is legitimate. Accordingly, I find that Commercial Union is not entitled to its claim for an award equal to its filing fee, either pursuant to the Rules of the Code, or section 282(11.2) of the Insurance Act. I have also declined to grant Commercial Union's claim for other allowable expenses of this proceeding. On the facts of this case, Commercial Union had the information on which it bases its exclusion defense, long before Mrs. Rano commenced her Application for Arbitration. As already noted, Commercial Union did not raise this defense until four months after the initial pre-hearing when Mrs. Rano's claim for income replacement benefits was added as an issue for adjudication. As stated in Richard, an award of expenses is warranted where they were avoidable, and a complete waste. In my view Commercial Union's conduct in raising its exclusion defense later in the proceeding, means that it must accept some responsibility for the initiation of this unproductive arbitration process. I have already held that Mrs. Rano should have contemplated Commercial Union's exclusion defense at the time she raised her additional claim for income replacement benefits. Similarly, I find that, at the time Commercial Union raised its exclusion defense, Commercial Union should have contemplated that Mrs. Rano might assert a claim for relief from forfeiture. Furthermore, it cannot be said that her request to change forums is entirely arbitrary, as she cannot pursue this remedy in the arbitration process. Consequently, I find that Commercial Union bears equal responsibility for the events which have given rise to the withdrawal of this arbitration. For this reason, I find that Commercial Union has no better claim for expenses than does Mrs. Rano. ARBITRATION ORDER 21 Under section 282 of the Insurance Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. I.8, as amended, it is ordered that: qp/e/nc/mxp 1. Mrs. Rano is granted permission to withdraw her Application for Arbitration. 2. Neither party is granted their expenses of the proceeding to date as a condition of this withdrawal.
7 Page 7 1 The Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule - Accidents on or after November 1, 1996, Ontario Regulation 403/96, as amended by Ontario Regulations 462/96, 505/96 and 551/96 and 303/98. 2 Prentice v. Co-operators, 184 ILR (FSCO A , April 29, 1998) 4 As in Richard, the current rules respecting expenses applies to Mrs. Rano's proceeding, as she filed her Application for Arbitration after November 1, 1996.
Case Name: Graham v. Coseco Insurance Co./HB Group/Direct Protect
Page 1 Case Name: Graham v. Coseco Insurance Co./HB Group/Direct Protect Appearances: Between: Malvia Graham, applicant, and Coseco Insurance Co./HB Group/Direct Protect, insurer [2002] O.F.S.C.I.D. No.
More informationIN THE MATTER OF THE INSURANCE ACT, R.S.O. 1990, c. I. 8, and REGULATION 664/90. AND IN THE MATTER OF THE ARBITRATION ACT, S.O. 1991, c.
IN THE MATTER OF THE INSURANCE ACT, R.S.O. 1990, c. I. 8, and REGULATION 664/90 AND IN THE MATTER OF THE ARBITRATION ACT, S.O. 1991, c. 17; AND IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION BETWEEN: STATE FARM AUTOMOBILE
More informationCase Name: Panou v. Zurich North America Canada. Between: Jeremy Panou, applicant, and Zurich North America Canada, insurer
Page 1 Case Name: Panou v. Zurich North America Canada Between: Jeremy Panou, applicant, and Zurich North America Canada, insurer [2002] O.F.S.C.I.D. No. 140 File No. FSCO A01-000882 Ontario Financial
More informationCase Name: LeDonne v. Coseco Insurance Co. Between: Alfreda LeDonne, applicant, and Coseco Insurance Co./HB Group/Direct Protect, insurer
Page 1 Case Name: LeDonne v. Coseco Insurance Co. Between: Alfreda LeDonne, applicant, and Coseco Insurance Co./HB Group/Direct Protect, insurer [2002] O.F.S.C.I.D. No. 59 File No. FSCO A01-000739 Ontario
More informationCITATION: Lucas-Logan v. Certas Direct Insurance Company, 2017 ONSC 828 COURT FILE NO.: CV DATE: ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
CITATION: Lucas-Logan v. Certas Direct Insurance Company, 2017 ONSC 828 COURT FILE NO.: CV-15-21829 DATE: 20170202 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN: Eunice Lucas-Logan Plaintiff and Certas Direct
More informationDECISION ON A PRELIMINARY ISSUE
Financial Services Commission of Ontario Commission des services financiers de l Ontario BETWEEN: YAO YUE CHEN and DE HUAN CHEN Applicants and CERTAS DIRECT INSURANCE COMPANY Insurer DECISION ON A PRELIMINARY
More informationONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE ) ) REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
CITATION: Volpe v. Co-operators General Insurance Company, 2017 ONSC 261 COURT FILE NO.: 13-42024 DATE: 2017-01-13 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE B E T W E E N: Vicky Volpe A. Rudder, for the Plaintiff/Respondent
More informationIndexed as: Pelzner v. Coseco Insurance Co.
Page 1 Indexed as: Pelzner v. Coseco Insurance Co. Between: Bozena Pelzner and Peter Pelzner, applicant, and Coseco Insurance Co./HB Group/Direct Protect, insurer [2000] O.F.S.C.I.D. No. 81 File No. FSCO
More informationREASONS FOR DECISION
Financial Services Commission of Ontario Commission des services financiers de l Ontario BETWEEN: T.N. Applicant and PERSONAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF CANADA Insurer REASONS FOR DECISION Before: Heard: Appearances:
More informationINSURANCE LAW BULLETIN
INSURANCE LAW BULLETIN April 1, 2013 Rose Bilash & Caroline Theriault NON-EARNER BENEFITS: ASSESSING ENTITLEMENT FOLLOWING THE COURT OF APPEAL RULING IN GALDAMEZ [The information below is provided as a
More informationTRIBUNAL D APPEL EN MATIÈRE DE PERMIS
LICENCE APPEAL TRIBUNAL Safety, Licensing Appeals and Standards Tribunals Ontario TRIBUNAL D APPEL EN MATIÈRE DE PERMIS Tribunaux de la sécurité, des appels en matière de permis et des normes Ontario Date:
More informationand STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY Insurer DECISION #2
BETWEEN: SHAWN P. LUNN Applicant and STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY Insurer DECISION #2 Issues: The Applicant, Shawn P. Lunn, was injured in a motor vehicle accident on December 25, 1993.
More informationDECISION ON A MOTION
Financial Services Commission of Ontario Commission des services financiers de l Ontario BETWEEN: RAFFAELLA DE ROSA Applicant and WAWANESA MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY Insurer DECISION ON A MOTION Before:
More informationDECISION ON A PRELIMINARY ISSUE
Financial Services Commission of Ontario Commission des services financiers de l Ontario BETWEEN: EUSTACHIO (STEVE) GIORDANO Applicant and ROYAL & SUNALLIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY OF CANADA Insurer DECISION
More informationWHEN A FALSE STATEMENT VITIATES A CLAIM:
The Law Bulletin Volume 11, April 20 19 WHEN A FALSE STATEMENT VITIATES A CLAIM: Pinder v. Farmers Mutual Insurance Company Part I Introduction Although the reciprocal duty of good faith is the legal principle
More informationLICENCE APPEAL TRIBUNAL
LICENCE APPEAL TRIBUNAL Safety, Licensing Appeals and Standards Tribunals Ontario Date: October 3, 2016 Tribunal File Number: 16-000063/AABS In the matter of an Application for Dispute Resolution pursuant
More informationTRIBUNAL D APPEL EN MATIÈRE DE PERMIS
LICENCE APPEAL TRIBUNAL Safety, Licensing Appeals and Standards Tribunals Ontario TRIBUNAL D APPEL EN MATIÈRE DE PERMIS Tribunaux de la sécurité, des appels en matière de permis et des normes Ontario Date:
More informationSTATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY. -and-
IN THE MATTER of a dispute between State Farm Automobile Insurance Company and Lloyd s of London Insurance Company, The Toronto Transit Insurance Company Ltd., and Economical Mutual Insurance Company pursuant
More informationSTATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Applicant
CITATION: State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. TD Home & Auto Insurance Company, 2016 ONSC 6229 COURT FILE NO.: CV-16-555100 DATE: 20161222 SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE ONTARIO RE: STATE FARM
More informationCLAIMS AGAINST INDUSTRIAL HYGIENISTS: THE TRILOGY OF PREVENTION, HANDLING AND RESOLUTION PART TWO: WHAT TO DO WHEN A CLAIM HAPPENS
CLAIMS AGAINST INDUSTRIAL HYGIENISTS: THE TRILOGY OF PREVENTION, HANDLING AND RESOLUTION PART TWO: WHAT TO DO WHEN A CLAIM HAPPENS Martin M. Ween, Esq. Partner Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman & Dicker,
More informationAND IN THE MATTER OF THE ARBITRATION ACT, S.O. 1991, c. 17; AND IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION STATE FARM MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY.
IN THE MATTER OF THE INSURANCE ACT, R.S.O. 1990, c. I. 8, section 268 and REGULATION 283/95 AND IN THE MATTER OF THE ARBITRATION ACT, S.O. 1991, c. 17; AND IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION BETWEEN: STATE
More informationINSURANCE LAW BULLETIN
INSURANCE LAW BULLETIN April 2010 ACCIDENT BENEFITS & LIMITATION PERIODS: REVISITED [The information below is provided as a service by Shillingtons LLP and is not intended to be legal advice. Those seeking
More informationTRIBUNAL D APPEL EN MATIÈRE DE PERMIS
LICENCE APPEAL TRIBUNAL Safety, Licensing Appeals and Standards Tribunals Ontario TRIBUNAL D APPEL EN MATIÈRE DE PERMIS Tribunaux de la sécurité, des appels en matière de permis et des normes Ontario Tribunal
More informationDECISION ON A MOTION
Financial Services Commission of Ontario Commission des services financiers de l Ontario BETWEEN: KAMALAVELU VADIVELU Applicant and STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY Insurer DECISION ON A
More informationOFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF ARBITRATIONS. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY Appellant. and APPEAL ORDER
Appeal P-013860 OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF ARBITRATIONS STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY Appellant and SHAWN P. LUNN Respondent BEFORE: COUNSEL: David R. Draper, Director s Delegate David
More informationECHELON GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY. - and - DECISION ON A PRELIMINARY ISSUE
IN THE MATTER OF SECTION 275 OF THE INSURANCE ACT, R.S.O. 1990, AND ONTARIO REGULATION 664 AND IN THE MATTER OF THE ARBITRATION ACT, S.O. 1991, c.17 AND IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION BETWEEN: ECHELON
More informationInterplay between Occupational and Non-Occupational Disability cases. Rob Boswell
Interplay between Occupational and Non-Occupational Disability cases Rob Boswell Schedule 2 Employers Group Conference 8 October 2013 What to expect for the next 2 hours A review of the right to sue provisions
More informationARBITRATION ACT. May 29, 2016>
ARBITRATION ACT Wholly Amended by Act No. 6083, Dec. 31, 1999 Amended by Act No. 6465, Apr. 7, 2001 Act No. 6626, Jan. 26, 2002 Act No. 10207, Mar. 31, 2010 Act No. 11690, Mar. 23, 2013 Act No. 14176,
More informationONTARIO AUTOMOBILE CLAIMS PRIMER Rogers Partners LLP
1. INTRODUCTION ONTARIO AUTOMOBILE CLAIMS PRIMER Rogers Partners LLP When a car accident occurs in Ontario, an injured person may pursue two separate avenues of recovery: A tort action may be commenced
More informationThe Advocates Society PROMOTING EXCELLENCE IN ADVOCACY
The Advocates Society PROMOTING EXCELLENCE IN ADVOCACY BY E-MAIL December 2, 2013 Senior Manager Insurance Policy Unit Industrial and Financial Policy Branch Ministry of Finance 95 Grosvener Street, 4th
More informationTable of Contents Section Page
Arbitration Regulations 2015 Table of Contents Section Page Part 1 : General... 1 1. Title... 1 2. Legislative authority... 1 3. Application of the Regulations... 1 4. Date of enactment... 1 5. Date of
More informationTHIRD PARTY LIABILITY COVERAGE IN AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE CONTEXT: Key Concepts and Practical Strategies Rogers Partners LLP
THIRD PARTY LIABILITY COVERAGE IN AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE CONTEXT: Key Concepts and Practical Strategies Rogers Partners LLP 1. INTRODUCTION Automobile coverage issues in Ontario include principles extending
More informationMr S complains about Bar Mutual Indemnity Fund Limited s decision to withdraw funding for his claim.
complaint Mr S complains about Bar Mutual Indemnity Fund Limited s decision to withdraw funding for his claim. background I issued a provisional decision on this complaint in December 2015. An extract
More informationIN THE MATTER OF THE INSURANCE ACT, R.S.O. 1990, c. I. 8, SECTION 275 and REGULATION 664 OF THE ACT
IN THE MATTER OF THE INSURANCE ACT, R.S.O. 1990, c. I. 8, SECTION 275 and REGULATION 664 OF THE ACT AND IN THE MATTER OF THE ARBITRATION ACT, S.O. 1991, c. 17, as amended; AND IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
More informationTRIBUNAL D APPEL EN MATIÈRE DE PERMIS
LICENCE APPEAL TRIBUNAL Safety, Licensing Appeals and Standards Tribunals Ontario TRIBUNAL D APPEL EN MATIÈRE DE PERMIS Tribunaux de la sécurité, des appels en matière de permis et des normes Ontario Tribunal
More informationROAD ACCIDENT FUND BENEFIT SCHEME BILL B (RABS)
1 LAW SOCIETY OF SOUTH AFRICA ROAD ACCIDENT FUND ACT 56 OF 1996 ROAD ACCIDENT FUND BENEFIT SCHEME BILL B17 2017 (RABS) INTRODUCTION The Parliamentary Portfolio Committee on Transport issued an invitation
More informationREASONS FOR DECISION
Financial Services Commission of Ontario Commission des services financiers de l Ontario BETWEEN: JEREMY JOSEY Applicant and PRIMMUM INSURANCE CO. Insurer REASONS FOR DECISION Before: Heard: Appearances:
More informationOFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF ARBITRATIONS. and. ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY OF CANADA Respondent APPEAL ORDER
OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF ARBITRATIONS Appeal P03-00038 JOSEPHINE ABOUFARAH Appellant and ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY OF CANADA Respondent BEFORE: REPRESENTATIVES: David Evans David Carranza for Ms. Aboufarah
More informationDECISION WITH RESPECT TO PRELIMINARY ISSUE
B E T W E E N : IN THE MATTER OF THE INSURANCE ACT, R.S.O. 1990, c. I. 8, Section 268 AND REGULATION 283/95 THEREUNDER AND IN THE MATTER OF THE ARBITRATION ACT, S.O. 1991, c.17 AND IN THE MATTER OF AN
More informationCorrelation Table. 1 (1) - Definitions 1 (5) - Definitions 1 (2) - Interpretation Act applies 1 (1) - Interpretation Act applies
Correlation Table Agreement dated 7 th February 2003 Clause 1 - General interpretation Clause 1 - Interpretation and definitions 1 (1) - Definitions 1 (5) - Definitions 1 (2) - Interpretation Act applies
More informationPart II: Handling Conflicts of Interest between Insured and Insurer: The Lawyer s Dilemma
Handling Professional Indemnity Coverage Issues in Cases of Suspected Fraud Part II: Handling Conflicts of Interest between Insured and Insurer: The Lawyer s Dilemma Alison Padfield Devereux A. Introduction
More informationIN THE MATTER OF THE INSURANCE ACT, R.S.O. 1990, c. I. 8, SECTION 268 and REGULATION 283/95
IN THE MATTER OF THE INSURANCE ACT, R.S.O. 1990, c. I. 8, SECTION 268 and REGULATION 283/95 AND IN THE MATTER OF THE ARBITRATION ACT, S.O. 1991, c. 17; AND IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION BETWEEN: CO-OPERATORS
More informationThe return of the taxpayer
The return of the taxpayer 1 June 2016 Keith Gordon discusses the First-tier Tribunal s decision in Revell v HMRC and the broader implications of the case What is the issue? The First-tier Tribunal s decision
More informationSUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: McLean v. Portage la Prairie Mutual Insurance Company, 2018 NSSC 110
SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: McLean v. Portage la Prairie Mutual Insurance Company, 2018 NSSC 110 Date: 20180508 Docket: Pic No. 457907 Registry: Pictou Between: Keith Edward McLean v. The Portage
More informationREASONS FOR DECISION
Financial Services Commission of Ontario Commission des services financiers de l Ontario BETWEEN: FRANK BANOS Applicant and JEVCO INSURANCE COMPANY Insurer REASONS FOR DECISION Before: Heard: Appearances:
More informationIndexed as: Veldhuizen v. Coseco Insurance Co. Between: Ingrid Veldhuizen, Applicant, and Coseco Insurance Company, Insurer. [1995] O.I.C.D. No.
Page 1 Indexed as: Veldhuizen v. Coseco Insurance Co. Between: Ingrid Veldhuizen, Applicant, and Coseco Insurance Company, Insurer [1995] O.I.C.D. No. 158 File No.: A-015549 Ontario Insurance Commission
More informationIN THE MATTER OF THE INSURANCE ACT, R.S.O. 1990, C.I.8, AND REGULATION 283/95 THERETO AND IN THE MATTER OF THE ARBITRATION ACT, S.O. 1991, C.
IN THE MATTER OF THE INSURANCE ACT, R.S.O. 1990, C.I.8, AND REGULATION 283/95 THERETO AND IN THE MATTER OF THE ARBITRATION ACT, S.O. 1991, C. 17 B E T W E E N: AND IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION BETWEEN
More informationCase Name: Wawanesa Mutual Insurance Co. v. AXA Insurance (Canada)
Page 1 Case Name: Wawanesa Mutual Insurance Co. v. AXA Insurance (Canada) Between The Wawanesa Mutual Insurance Company, Applicant (Appellant in Appeal), and AXA Insurance (Canada), Respondent (Respondent
More informationIN THE MATTER OF THE INSURANCE ACT, R.S.O. 1990, c. I. 8, and s.275, and ONTARIO REGULATION 664/90, s.9;
IN THE MATTER OF THE INSURANCE ACT, R.S.O. 1990, c. I. 8, and s.275, and ONTARIO REGULATION 664/90, s.9; AND IN THE MATTER OF THE ARBITRATION ACT, S.O. 1991, c. 17, as amended AND IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION;
More informationsummary of complaint background to complaint
summary of complaint Mr N complains about the Gresham Insurance Company Limited s requirement for his chosen solicitors to enter into a Conditional Fee Agreement (CFA). Claims for legal expenses are handled
More informationAND IN THE MATTER OF THE ARBITRATION ACT, S.O. 1991, c. 17; AND IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION. - and - INSURANCE CORPORATION OF BRITISH COLUMBIA
IN THE MATTER OF THE INSURANCE ACT, R.S.O. 1990, c. I. 8, SECTION 268 and REGULATION 283/95 AND IN THE MATTER OF THE ARBITRATION ACT, S.O. 1991, c. 17; AND IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION BETWEEN: CERTAS
More informationIndexed as: Hutchinson v. Clarke. Hutchinson et al. v. Clarke. [1988] O.J. No O.R. (2d) C.C.L.I A.C.W.S.
Page 1 Indexed as: Hutchinson v. Clarke Hutchinson et al. v. Clarke [1988] O.J. No. 1855 66 O.R. (2d) 515 35 C.C.L.I. 186 12 A.C.W.S. (3d) 329 Action No. 88/86 Ontario High Court of Justice Potts J. October
More informationCase Name: Khaledi v. Allstate Insurance Co. of Canada. Between: Allstate Insurance Company of Canada, appellant, and Kolsom Khaledi, respondent
Page 1 Case Name: Khaledi v. Allstate Insurance Co. of Canada Between: Allstate Insurance Company of Canada, appellant, and Kolsom Khaledi, respondent [2003] O.F.S.C.I.D. No. 106 Appeal P01-00046 Ontario
More informationIn the matter of an Application pursuant to subsection 280(2) of the Insurance Act, RSO 1990, c. I.8, in relation to statutory accident benefits.
Safety, Licensing Appeals and Standards Tribunals Ontario Licence Appeal Tribunal Automobile Accident Benefits Service Mailing Address: 77 Wellesley St. W., Box 250, Toronto ON M7A 1N3 In-Person Service:
More informationClarifying the Insolvency Clause Trade Off. Robert M. Hall
Clarifying the Insolvency Clause Trade Off by Robert M. Hall [Mr. Hall is a former law firm partner, a former insurance and reinsurance executive and acts as an expert witness and insurance consultant
More informationCOURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO ST. ELIZABETH HOME SOCIETY (HAMILTON, ONTARIO) - and -
Court of Appeal File No. Ontario Superior Court File No. 339/96 IN THE MATTER OF BETWEEN: COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO ST. ELIZABETH HOME SOCIETY (HAMILTON, ONTARIO) - and - Plaintiff (Respondent) THE CORPORATION
More informationREASONS FOR DECISION ATTENDANCE AT AN INSURER EXAMINATION (IE)
Financial Services Commission of Ontario Commission des services financiers de l Ontario BETWEEN: ANDREW TAILLEUR Applicant and ROYAL & SUNALLIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY OF CANADA Insurer REASONS FOR DECISION
More informationArbitration CAS 2012/A/2871 Southend United FC v. UJ Lombard FC, award of 19 February 2013
Tribunal Arbitral du Sport Court of Arbitration for Sport Arbitration award of 19 February 2013 Panel: Mr Lars Halgreen (Denmark), Sole Arbitrator Football Transfer Interpretation of a contractual clause
More informationCase No (Fire Fighter Vincent DiBona's health insurance benefits) OPINION AND AWARD
AMERICAN ARBITRATION ASSOCIATION In the Matter of the Arbitration X between PROFESSIONAL FIREFIGHTERS ASSOCIATION OF NASSAU COUNTY, LOCAL 1588, laff and VILLAGE OF GARDEN CITY Case No. 01-17-0005-1878
More informationARBITRATION ACT NO. 4 OF 1995 LAWS OF KENYA
LAWS OF KENYA ARBITRATION ACT NO. 4 OF 1995 Revised Edition 2012 [2010] Published by the National Council for Law Reporting with the Authority of the Attorney-General www.kenyalaw.org [Rev. 2012] No.
More informationV o l u m e I I C h a p t e r 5. Sections 10 and 11: Limitation of Actions, Elections, Subrogations and Certification to Court
V o l u m e I I C h a p t e r 5 Sections 10 and 11: Limitation of Actions, Elections, Subrogations and Certification to Court Contents Limitation of Actions Against Workers... 5 Exception to Limitation
More informationCase Name: Amoa-Williams v. Allstate Insurance Co. of Canada
Page 1 Case Name: Amoa-Williams v. Allstate Insurance Co. of Canada Between: Allstate Insurance Company of Canada, appellant, and Ama Amoa-Williams, respondent [2003] O.F.S.C.I.D. No. 108 Appeal P01-00052
More informationTariq. The effect of S. 12 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Insurance (Third Party Risks) Act Ch. 48:51 The Act is agreed. That term is void as against third
REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO HCA No. CV 2011-00701 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN GULF INSURANCE LIMITED AND Claimant NASEEM ALI AND TARIQ ALI Defendants Before The Hon. Madam Justice C. Gobin
More informationAustrian Arbitration Law
Austrian Arbitration Law CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE PART SIX CHAPTER FOUR ARBITRATION PROCEDURE FIRST TITLE GENERAL PROVISIONS Article 577. Scope of Application (1) The provisions of this Chapter apply if
More informationCANADIAN RAILWAY OFFICE OF ARBITRATION & DISPUTE RESOLUTION CASE NO Heard in Montreal, Tuesday, 11 September 2012.
CANADIAN RAILWAY OFFICE OF ARBITRATION & DISPUTE RESOLUTION CASE NO. 4134 Heard in Montreal, Tuesday, 11 September 2012 Concerning CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAY COMPANY And UNITED STEELWORKERS UNION LOCAL
More informationTHE JAPAN COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION ASSOCIATION COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION RULES. CHAPTER General Provisions
THE JAPAN COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION ASSOCIATION COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION RULES As Amended and Effective on January 1, 2008 CHAPTER General Provisions Rule 1. Purpose The purpose of these Rules shall be to provide
More informationONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE. ) ) ) ) ) Defendants ) ) ) ) Judgment on Motion for Determination of a Question of Law
CITATION: Skunk v. Ketash et al., 2017 ONSC 4457 COURT FILE NO.: CV-14-0382 DATE: 2017-07-25 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE B E T W E E N: CHRISTOHPER SKUNK Plaintiff - and - LAUREL KETASH and JEVCO
More informationARBITRATION ACT 2005 REVISED 2011 REGIONAL RESOLUTION GLOBAL SOLUTION
ARBITRATION ACT 2005 REVISED 2011 REGIONAL RESOLUTION GLOBAL SOLUTION According to Section 3(1) of the Arbitration (Amendment) Act 2018 [Act A1563] and the Ministers appointment of the date of coming
More informationArticle 7 - Definition and form of arbitration agreement. Article 8 - Arbitration agreement and substantive claim before court
UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration (1985) (as adopted by the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law on 21 June 1985) CHAPTER I - GENERAL PROVISIONS Article 1 - Scope
More informationSEC. 5. SMALL CASE PROCEDURE FOR REQUESTING COMPETENT AUTHORITY ASSISTANCE.01 General.02 Small Case Standards.03 Small Case Filing Procedure
26 CFR 601.201: Rulings and determination letters. Rev. Proc. 96 13 OUTLINE SECTION 1. PURPOSE OF MUTUAL AGREEMENT PROCESS SEC. 2. SCOPE Suspension.02 Requests for Assistance.03 U.S. Competent Authority.04
More informationCITATION: H.M. The Queen in Right of Ontario v. Axa Insurance Canada, 2017 ONSC 3414 COURT FILE NO.: CV DATE: ONTARIO
CITATION: H.M. The Queen in Right of Ontario v. Axa Insurance Canada, 2017 ONSC 3414 COURT FILE NO.: CV-16-553910 DATE: 20170601 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE IN THE MATTER of the Insurance Act, R.S.O.
More informationIN THE MATTER OF THE INSURANCE ACT, R.S.O. 1990, c.1.8 AS AMENDED SECTION 268 AND REGULATION 283/95 MADE THEREUNDER BETWEEN: UNIFUND ASSURANCE COMPANY
IN THE MATTER OF THE INSURANCE ACT, R.S.O. 1990, c.1.8 AS AMENDED SECTION 268 AND REGULATION 283/95 MADE THEREUNDER AND IN THE MATTER OF THE ARBITRATION ACT, S.O. 1991, c.17 AS AMENDED AND IN THE MATTER
More informationAgreement for Advisors Providing Services to Interactive Brokers Customers
6101 03/10/2015 Agreement for Advisors Providing Services to Interactive Brokers Customers This Agreement is entered into between Interactive Brokers ("IB") and the undersigned Advisor. WHEREAS, IB provides
More informationCOMMERCIAL ARBITRATION RULES
COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION RULES As Amended and Effective on December 10, 2015 ADMINISTRATIVE FEE REGULATIONS As Amended and Effective on February 1, 2014 REGULATIONS FOR ARBITRATOR S REMUNERATION As Amended
More informationDECISION ON EXPENSES
Financial Services Commission of Ontario Commission des services financiers de l Ontario BETWEEN: THOMAS WALDOCK Applicant and STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY Insurer DECISION ON EXPENSES
More informationProposed Palestinian Law on International Commercial Arbitration
Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law Volume 32 Issue 2 2000 Proposed Palestinian Law on International Commercial Arbitration Palestine Legislative Council Follow this and additional works
More informationCOURT OF APPEALS FAIRFIELD COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
[Cite as Penix v. Ohio Real Estate Appraiser Bd., 2011-Ohio-191.] COURT OF APPEALS FAIRFIELD COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT TERESA PENIX -vs- Plaintiff-Appellee OHIO REAL ESTATE APPRAISER BOARD,
More informationOntario Ltd. (c.o.b. Castle Auto Collision & Mechanical Service) v. Certas Insurance, [2016] O.J. No. 264
1218897 Ontario Ltd. (c.o.b. Castle Auto Collision & Mechanical Service) v. Certas Insurance, [2016] O.J. No. Ontario Judgments [2016] O.J. No. 2016 ONSC 354 Ontario Superior Court of Justice Divisional
More informationUkrainian Chamber of Commerce and Industry. Legal Acts. THE LAW OF UKRAINE ON INTERNATIONAL COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION
Page 1 of 10 THE LAW OF UKRAINE ON INTERNATIONAL COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION (As amended in accordance with the Laws No. 762-IV of 15 May 2003, No. 2798-IV of 6 September 2005) The present Law: - is based on
More informationIN THE EMPLOYMENT COURT WELLINGTON [2013] NZEmpC 175 WRC 27/12. Judge Couch Judge Inglis Judge Perkins JUDGMENT OF FULL COURT
IN THE EMPLOYMENT COURT WELLINGTON IN THE MATTER OF BETWEEN AND AND [2013] NZEmpC 175 WRC 27/12 a challenge to a determination of the Employment Relations Authority TRANZIT COACHLINES WAIRARAPA LIMITED
More informationARBITRATION ACT. Act No: 10/2013 ARBITRATION ACT Maldivian Government Gazette Volume 42 Edition rd July 2013
ARBITRATION ACT Act No: 10/2013 ARBITRATION ACT Maldivian Government Gazette Volume 42 Edition 102 3 rd July 2013 Chapter I Preamble Introduction & Title 1 (a) This Act lays out the principles for the
More informationSUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA
REL: 09/01/2017 Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the advance sheets of Southern Reporter. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Alabama Appellate
More informationArbitration Act (Tentative translation)
Arbitration Act (Tentative translation) (Act No. 138 of August 1, 2003) Table of Contents Chapter I General Provisions (Articles 1 to 12) Chapter II Arbitration Agreement (Articles 13 to 15) Chapter III
More informationPresentation to kon gres 2015
What about the costs? The impact of litigation costs on mediation Presentation to kon gres 2015 Peter Franks, Andrew Horne, Karen Radich Why do costs matter in mediation? Session outline The perspective
More informationREAL ESTATE COUNCIL OF ONTARIO DISCIPLINE DECISION
REAL ESTATE COUNCIL OF ONTARIO DISCIPLINE DECISION IN THE MATTER OF A DISCIPLINE HEARING HELD PURSUANT TO BY-LAW NO. 10 OF THE REAL ESTATE COUNCIL OF ONTARIO John Van Dyk Respondent This document also
More informationINSURANCE LAW BULLETIN
1 INSURANCE LAW BULLETIN October 2, 2013 Rose Bilash, Hermina Nuric and Evan Bawks IMPLICATIONS OF RECENT CHANGES TO THE STATUTORY ACCIDENT BENEFITS SCHEDULE O.Reg 34/10 [The information below is provided
More informationInsurer v. Insurer: The Bases of an Insurer s Right to Recover Payment From Another Insurer*
Insurer v. Insurer: The Bases of an Insurer s Right to Recover Payment From Another Insurer* By: Thomas F. Lucas McKenna, Storer, Rowe, White & Farrug Chicago A part of every insurer s loss evaluation
More informationNOVA SCOTIA WORKERS COMPENSATION APPEALS TRIBUNAL
NOVA SCOTIA WORKERS COMPENSATION APPEALS TRIBUNAL Appellant: [X] (Worker) Participants entitled to respond to this appeal: [X] (Employer); and The Workers Compensation Board of Nova Scotia (Board) APPEAL
More informationOrder F17-38 TOWN OF GIBSONS. Celia Francis Adjudicator. September 13, 2017
Order F17-38 TOWN OF GIBSONS Celia Francis Adjudicator September 13, 2017 CanLII Cite: 2017 BCIPC 42 Quicklaw Cite: [2017] B.C.I.P.C.D. No. 42 Summary: The Gibsons Alliance of Business and Community (GABC)
More informationWORKPLACE SAFETY AND INSURANCE APPEALS TRIBUNAL DECISION NO. 975/05R
WORKPLACE SAFETY AND INSURANCE APPEALS TRIBUNAL DECISION NO. 975/05R BEFORE: R. Nairn : Vice-Chair HEARING: October 26, 2006 at Toronto Written DATE OF DECISION: December 29, 2006 NEUTRAL CITATION: 2006
More information969. Pursuant to Article 95 item 3 of the Constitution of Montenegro, I hereby adopt DECREE ON THE PROMULGATION OF THE LAW ON ARBITRATION
969. Pursuant to Article 95 item 3 of the Constitution of Montenegro, I hereby adopt DECREE ON THE PROMULGATION OF THE LAW ON ARBITRATION I hereby promulgate the Law on Arbitration adopted by the 25 th
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY CIV ORAL JUDGMENT OF VENNING J
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY CIV 2005-404-006984 BETWEEN AND STELLAR PROJECTS LIMITED Appellant NICK GJAJA PLUMBING LIIMITED Respondent Hearing: 10 April 2006 Appearances: Mr J C
More informationTHE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, HELD AT JOHANNESBURG
Reportable THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, In the matter between: HELD AT JOHANNESBURG Case No: J 2876/17 VECTOR LOGISTICS (PTY) LTD Applicant and NATIONAL TRANSPORT MOVEMENT ( NTM ) M L KGAABI AND OTHERS
More informationIntroduction 2. Debt Basics 2. Letter of Demand to recover a Debt 4. Financial Counselling for Debtors 4. Harassment by Debt Collectors 5
Debts CHAPTER CONTENTS Introduction 2 Debt Basics 2 Letter of Demand to recover a Debt 4 Financial Counselling for Debtors 4 Harassment by Debt Collectors 5 Going to the Tribunal or Court for Debt Disputes
More information1. Company/Organization/Individual named in the determination ( Appellant ) Name Address Postal Code
APPEAL FORM (Form 1) This Appeal Form, along with the required attachments, must be delivered to the Employment Standards Tribunal within the appeal period. See Rule 18(3) of the Tribunal s Rules of Practice
More informationWAWANESA MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY. - and - PRELIMINARY DECISION DISPUTED PRODUCTIONS
IN THE MATTER OF SECTION 275 OF THE INSURANCE ACT, R.S.O. 1990, AND ONTARIO REGULATION 664 AND IN THE MATTER OF THE ARBITRATION ACT, S.O. 1991, c.17 AND IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION BETWEEN: WAWANESA
More informationIN THE MATTER OF THE INSURANCE ACT, R.S.O. 1990, c. I. 8, as amended. AND IN THE MATTER OF THE ARBITRATION ACT, S.O. 1991, c.
IN THE MATTER OF THE INSURANCE ACT, R.S.O. 1990, c. I. 8, as amended AND IN THE MATTER OF THE ARBITRATION ACT, S.O. 1991, c.17, as amended AND IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION B E T W E E N : THE DOMINION
More informationCommercial Arbitration Act Unofficial Translation of the new Venezuelan Commercial Arbitration Act
Commercial Arbitration Act Unofficial Translation of the new Venezuelan Commercial Arbitration Act By Victorino J. Tejera-Pérez in collaboration with Tom C. López Chapter I General Provisions Article 1.
More informationIN THE MATTER OF THE INSURANCE ACT, R.S.O, c. I. 8, s. 268 and REGULATION 283/95 thereunder;
IN THE MATTER OF THE INSURANCE ACT, R.S.O, c. I. 8, s. 268 and REGULATION 283/95 thereunder; AND IN THE MATTER OF THE ARBITRATION ACT, 1991, S.O. 1991, c. 17; AND IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION BETWEEN:
More informationSOCIAL SECURITY TRIBUNAL DECISION Appeal Division
Citation: S. V. v. Minister of Employment and Social Development, 2016 SSTADIS 87 Tribunal File Number: AD-15-1088 BETWEEN: S. V. Appellant and Minister of Employment and Social Development (formerly known
More information