Case Name: Graham v. Coseco Insurance Co./HB Group/Direct Protect
|
|
- Kristian Wood
- 6 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 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. 40 File No. FSCO A Ontario Financial Services Commission D. Leitch, Arbitrator Heard: February 12, 2002 by conference call Decision: March 8, 2002 (33 paras.) Jadranka Cavrak, for Ms. Graham. Catherine Byrne, for Coseco Insurance Co./HB Group/Direct Protect. Issues: REASONS FOR DECISION 1 The Applicant, Malvia Graham, was injured in a motor vehicle accident on April 16, She applied for statutory accident benefits from Coseco Insurance Co./HB Group/Direct Protect ("Coseco"), payable under the Schedule. 1 Disputes arose which the parties were unable to resolve through mediation and Ms. Graham applied for arbitration. However, at the pre-hearing, Ms. Graham sought to withdraw her application for arbitration. Coseco was prepared to agree to the withdrawal but only if it obtained two awards, one in respect of its assessment fee and another in respect of its arbitration expenses. Ms. Graham disputed Coseco's right to obtain such awards. The
2 Page 2 pre-hearing letter identified the following two issues for arbitration: Result: 2 Background: 1. Is Ms. Graham liable to pay an amount to Coseco that does not exceed the amount assessed against Coseco in respect of the arbitration, pursuant to subsection 282(11.2) of the Insurance Act, because she commenced an arbitration that is frivolous, vexatious or an abuse of process? 2. Is Ms. Graham liable to pay Coseco's expenses in respect of the arbitration under section 282(11) of the Insurance Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. I.8? 1. Ms. Graham is not liable to pay an amount to Coseco pursuant to subsection 282(11.2) of the Insurance Act. 2. Ms. Graham is not liable to pay Coseco's expenses in respect of the arbitration under section 282(11) of the Insurance Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. I.8. 3 A Mediator's Report dated June 15, 2000 states that the parties were unable to resolve disputes regarding Ms. Graham's entitlement to income replacement benefits, medical benefits, housekeeping expenses and examination expenses. In accordance with section 281(1) of the Insurance Act, Ms. Graham elected to pursue her right to these statutory accident benefits by commencing an action against the alleged tortfeasor and Coseco in the Superior Court of Justice. Ms. Graham's Statement of Claim was issued by the Local Registrar on August 25, Ms. Graham is represented in that action by Goldentuler & Associates. 4 A second Mediator's Report dated February 9, 2001 states that the parties were unable to resolve disputes regarding Ms. Graham's entitlement to additional examination expenses, different from the examination expenses mentioned in the Mediator's Report of June 15, Whereas the first Mediator's Report had identified examination expenses in the amount of $2,400 for "a Job Site analysis and O.T. assessment by Career Navigators," the second Mediator's Report identified examination expenses in the amount of $3, for "assessments and reports provided by Deahy Medical Assessments on May 18, 2000." However, both Mediators' Reports confirmed that Ms. Graham claimed her examination expenses pursuant to section 24 of Part VI of the Schedule. Ms. Graham elected to pursue her right to payment for the Deahy account by filing an Application for Arbitration, received by the Financial Services Commission of Ontario ("FSCO") on February 22, The Application for Arbitration states that Ms. Graham is again represented by Goldentuler & Associates. 5 As stated above, Ms. Graham sought to withdraw her application at the pre-hearing. This discussion took place on September 12, Ms. Graham indicated that she now intended to
3 Page 3 pursue her right to payment for the Deahy account through her court action. Coseco agreed that this examination expense claim could be advanced in Ms. Graham's court action but it did not agree that Ms. Graham should be permitted to withdraw her Application for Arbitration on an unconditional basis. 6 Rule 70 of the Dispute Resolution Practice Code establishes that Ms. Graham is obliged to seek permission to withdraw her Application for Arbitration and that Coseco is entitled to seek awards in respect of its assessment fee and its arbitration expenses before agreeing to such a withdrawal. Evidence: 7 In paragraph 2(a)(vi) of her Statement of Claim, Ms. Graham sought to recover the "cost of examination expenses, pursuant to part VI, section 24 of the schedule, from April 16, 1999, ongoing." 3 In paragraph 2(d) and (e) of her Statement of Claim, Ms. Graham advanced a claim for punitive, aggravated and exemplary damages. 8 When counsel for the Insurer, Mr. Ted Charney, learned that Ms. Graham intended to proceed to arbitration in respect of the Deahy account, he wrote a letter dated February 19, 2001 to Goldentuler & Associates. Mr. Charney's letter 4 reads as follows: I have your fax of February 14, 2001 and proposed application for arbitration. Currently, your client has commenced proceedings in the Superior Court of Justice claiming various accident benefits. Accordingly, I would suggest you include the additional issues that were recently mediated as part of the ongoing court proceedings. Alternatively, if you decide to apply for arbitration, please take notice of our intention to add to the arbitration, all of the existing issues which are currently the subject matter of the court proceedings. It is our position that all of these matters should be dealt with in one forum and if you intend to proceed to arbitration, then we will use the arbitration as the forum to dispose of these matters. 9 Mr. Charney apparently received no reply to this letter and wrote a second letter to Goldentuler & Associates dated March 27, which reads as follows: Further to our recent conversation at which time I informed you that a $3, levy would be assessed against the insurer, unless you withdrew your application for arbitration by the response date, we now enclose our Response to the Application for Arbitration. We have filed this response as the time period for doing so expires today. Having not heard from you in connection with withdrawing the application for arbitration, we have no choice but to respond. Consequently, we trust you will discontinue the court proceeding against Coseco
4 Page 4 Insurance Company and proceed to adjudicate all matters in dispute through the services of the Financial Services Commission. In the event you disagree, please advise and we will institute the appropriate interlocutory proceedings. 10 In keeping with this second letter, the Insurer's Response to Ms. Graham's Application for Arbitration (which was also completed by Mr. Charney) addressed all of Ms. Graham's claims, including those advanced in her Statement of Claim. The Insurer did not file a Statement of Defence6 in the court action until after Ms. Graham indicated that she wanted to withdraw her Application for Arbitration and advance all her claims in court. 11 Ms. Graham was represented in the proceeding before me by Ms. Jadranka Cavrak of the law firm, Goldentuler & Associates. Ms. Cavrak supplied the following explanation for that law firm's decisions, first to file, and then to seek to withdraw, Ms. Graham's Application for Arbitration. 12 Ms. Cavrak stated that when Goldentuler & Associates filed Ms. Graham's Statement of Claim in August 2000, the firm was unaware of the Deahy account. She claimed that when the firm subsequently became aware of the Deahy account and filed the Application for Arbitration to recover only that account, it did so on the understanding that Ms. Graham was permitted to "split the venue" 7 in this way. According to Ms. Cavrak, Goldentuler & Associates only became aware of the FSCO case law discouraging venue-splitting well after the time allowed for Coseco's response to Ms. Graham's Application for Arbitration in February Ms. Cavrak was unable to indicate the exact dates when Goldentuler & Associates became aware of the Deahy account or the relevant FSCO case law. 13 Coseco's claim for an expense award was supported, in part, by a $1,336 bill 8 it received from Mr. Charney for his correspondence with Goldentuler & Associates and for his time in preparing for, participating in and reporting on the pre-hearing. In addition, Ms. Byrne indicated that she would charge Coseco $480 for her time in preparing for the hearing before me and that Coseco, therefore, claims total arbitration expenses in the amount of $1, Arguments: 14 Ms. Byrne submitted that the FSCO case law discouraging venue-splitting was clearly established by August 2000, the month when Ms. Graham filed her Statement of Claim and six months before she filed her Application for Arbitration. She noted that since Ms. Graham's court action sought to recover section 24 examination expenses "from April 16, 1999, ongoing," it covered the Deahy account dated May 18, Ms. Byrne pointed out that despite Mr. Charney's letter dated February 19, 2001, stating that "all of these matters should be dealt with in one forum," Goldentuler & Associates persisted in filing a separate Application for Arbitration in respect of the Deahy account and only sought to withdraw that application after Coseco had paid the required $3,000 assessment fee. In Ms. Byrne's submission, Goldentuler & Associates' conduct in this case amounted to an abuse of process, deserving of awards in Coseco's favour under section 12(2) paragraph 3 of the Expense Regulation 10 and under section 282(11.2) of the Insurance Act. 11
5 Page 5 15 Ms. Cavrak denied the allegation of abuse of process. She submitted that earlier FSCO case law had permitted venue-splitting and she maintained that her firm "promptly withdrew the Application at the pre-hearing" 12 on September 12, She pointed out that there was nothing frivolous, vexatious or abusive about the Deahy account itself. Based on the comments of the arbitrator in the case of Catlos v. Jevco Insurance Company, 13 Ms. Cavrak argued: It has been held that a finding that an Applicant has abused the Commission's process should not be made lightly. More must be shown than that an insurer has incurred costs in the course of the proceeding. There must be some evidence of improper purpose, the conduct muse [sic] be contemptuous of the process In addition, Ms. Cavrak maintained that since Coseco's Statement of Defence alleges that Ms. Graham failed to comply with sections 33 and 42 of the Schedule, Ms. Graham would have been forced to withdraw her Application for Arbitration in any event in order to seek relief from forfeiture, a remedy only available in court. 17 Finally, Ms. Cavrak submitted that Coseco is not entitled to arbitration expenses because it has employed the same law firm to defend both the court action and the arbitration with the result that the latter has not put the Insurer to any additional expense. Analysis and Conclusions: 18 I begin by agreeing with Ms. Byrne that since August 1, 2000, FSCO case law has strongly discouraged venue-splitting. On that date, Director's Delegate David Draper released the Lloyd's and Mangat decision 15 in which he enumerated the criteria to be considered in determining whether or not an applicant is entitled to proceed to arbitration when he/she has also commenced a court action in respect of the same accident. 19 Coseco did not request a finding that Ms. Graham was not entitled to proceed to arbitration in respect of the Deahy account. While I therefore do not make such a finding, I note that one would appear to have been justified on a consideration of the eight criteria enumerated in the Lloyd's and Mangat decision: (1) the court action was started before the arbitration proceeding and is broader in scope, (2) the same parties are involved and Ms. Graham carries the burden of proof in both forums, (3) the court action is broad enough to include the benefits claimed in the arbitration proceeding, (4) the court action includes a claim for punitive damages, (5) the court action includes a claim for weekly income benefits and to other examination expenses which may involve the same evidence, (6) there is no obvious impediment to Ms. Graham adding the issues to the court action, (7) the two proceedings may require substantially overlapping medical evidence and (8) the overlapping factual and legal issues create a real possibility of inconsistent findings. 20 Nevertheless, the Lloyd's and Mangat decision represented a new approach to the issue of venue-splitting. This fact was clearly present in the mind of the Director's Delegate when, after deciding that Mr. Mangat was not entitled to proceed to arbitration, he turned to address Lloyd's
6 Page 6 claims for the return of its assessment fee and for its arbitration expenses. The last paragraph of the Director's Delegate's decision in Lloyd's and Mangat is of particular importance for the issues before me. It reads as follows: In my view, Mr. Mangat's actions cannot be regarded as abusive. There was substantial support in the arbitration decisions for splitting claims between court and arbitration. Further, as noted above, Lloyd's condoned this approach to some extent. As a result, I am not persuaded that Mr. Mangat should be ordered to pay Lloyd's assessments. For similar reasons, I am not prepared to require Mr. Mangat to pay Lloyd's expenses. Rather, the parties will bear their own expenses, both at arbitration and on appeal Likewise, in the case of Royal & Reid, 17 also released on August 1, 2000, the same Director's Delegate overturned the Arbitrator's decision that Ms. Reid was entitled to proceed to arbitration despite her court action but he refused to overturn the Arbitrator's decision that Royal was not entitled to its expenses or to the return of its assessment fee. Ordering instead that the parties bear their own expenses, the Director's Delegate held: Ms. Reid's actions must be evaluated in light of the jurisprudence at the time. As there was considerable support in the arbitration decisions for splitting claims between court and arbitration, it would be unfair to criticize her to any significant degree Coincidentally, it was the same Director's Delegate who, in 1997, heard an appeal from the Catlos decision cited by Ms. Cavrak. After quoting the Arbitrator's comments as paraphrased by Ms. Cavrak, the Director's Delegate made the following remark of significance for present purposes: "... abuse of process may not be limited to situations of improper purpose or contemptuous conduct." Finally, I note that according to the case of Gik and Zurich Insurance Company, 20 I do not have the jurisdiction to order Ms. Graham's representative, Goldentuler & Associates, to pay the expense and assessment awards sought by Coseco. 24 Taking all these factors into consideration, I regard this as a difficult case involving competing interests. 25 On one view of the matter, it is clear that Coseco did not condone or contribute in any way to Ms. Graham's attempt to split the Deahy account from the rest of her claims. On the contrary, Mr. Charney's correspondence to Goldentuler & Associates clearly stated Coseco's position that Ms. Graham was only permitted to pursue her claims in one forum. Mr. Charney's correspondence was timely and reflected current case law. If abuse of process is not limited to situations of improper purpose or contemptuous conduct, then it can be extended to cover situations like the present one where, however innocently, Ms. Graham put Coseco to the expense of responding to an Application
7 Page 7 for Arbitration which, arguably, should never have been filed in the first place. 26 On another view of the matter, any law firm should reasonably expect to be excused for not knowing about a change in FSCO case law the day after, a month after, or perhaps even six months after, the release of the decision which brought about that change. In this case, Mr. Charney's correspondence to Goldentuler & Associates did not refer to any specific change in FSCO case law or to the Lloyd's and Mangat decision in particular. Given that Goldentuler & Associates cannot be held directly responsible for its lack of awareness of the Lloyd's and Mangat decision, it would be unfair to hold Ms. Graham responsible for this lack of awareness, even if she could try to recover her losses from Goldentuler & Associates in another forum. 27 While I acknowledge these competing interests, the ultimate resolution of this matter turns on the proper interpretation of the expression "abuse of process." As I am bound to do, I fully accept the Director's Delegate's view that abuse of process may not be limited to situations of improper purpose or contemptuous conduct. However, in my opinion, this expression should not be extended to cover the present case for two reasons. 28 First, as a result of Ms. Graham's decision to seek to withdraw her Application for Arbitration, her right to proceed to arbitration in respect of the Deahy account has never been specifically argued and adjudicated. I agree with the arbitrator in the Catlos case when he observed that "a finding that an applicant has abused the Commission's process should not... be made lightly." I am reluctant to make such a finding in the present case because I have not made the underlying finding that it would be based on, namely, that Ms. Graham was not entitled to proceed to arbitration in respect of the Deahy account Second, I regard Ms. Graham's Application for Arbitration as a genuine and guileless attempt to access the arbitration process in a manner in which it was indeed more accessible only six months before the Application was filed, that is, before the Lloyd's and Mangat decision was released. Goldentuler & Associates' lack of awareness of this decision was obviously not commendable but it was, in my view, understandable given the uneven evolution of FSCO case law in this area. 31 Accordingly, I conclude that Ms. Graham's application is not fairly or accurately characterized as an abuse of the arbitration process deserving of an assessment penalty or an expense award. I, therefore, allow Ms. Graham to withdraw her application without the conditions sought by Coseco. 32 Despite Ms. Graham's success in resisting the conditions for withdrawal sought by Coseco, the circumstances of this case do not justify an expense award in her favour. Each party will, therefore, bear its own expenses in relation to this hearing. ARBITRATION ORDER 33 Under section 282 of the Insurance Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. I.8, as amended, it is ordered that:
8 Page 8 1. Ms. Graham is not liable to pay an amount to Coseco pursuant to subsection 282(11.2) of the Insurance Act. 2. Ms. Graham is not liable to pay Coseco's expenses in respect of the arbitration under section 282(11) of the Insurance Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. I.8. qp/i/nc/qlamc 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, 551/96, 303/98 and 114/00. 2 Exhibit 3, p Exhibit 3, p Exhibit 1, p Exhibit 1, p Exhibit 2, p Exhibit 2, p. 6, par Exhibit 1, p Exhibit 1, p Expense Regulation 12(2) An arbitrator may award expenses to an insurer or insured person under subsection 282(11) of the Act if the arbitrator is satisfied that the award is justified, having regard to the following criteria: Whether the proceeding or any position taken by the insurer or the insured person during the proceeding was manifestly unfounded, frivolous, vexatious, fraudulent or an abuse of process. 11 Assessment against insured person. (11.2) If an insured person commences an arbitration that, in the opinion of the arbitrator, is
9 Page 9 frivolous, vexatious or an abuse of process, the arbitrator may award an amount to be paid by the insured person to the insurer that does not exceed the amount assessed against the insurer in respect of the arbitration under section Exhibit 2, p. 7, par (OIC A , February 7, 1997) at p Exhibit 2, p. 7, par Non-Marine Underwriters, Mbrs. of Lloyd's and Mangat (FSCO Appeal P , August 1, 2000). 16 ibid., p Royal & SunAlliance Insurance Company of Canada and Reid, (FSCO Appeal P , August 1, 2000). 18 ibid., p Jevco Insurance Company and Catlos, (FSCO Appeal P , September 26, 1997). 20 (FSCO A , October 4, 2001). 21 Op. cit. note I acknowledge that had Coseco requested such a finding, Ms. Graham may have responded that the issue was rendered moot by her request to withdraw her Application. Since Coseco made no request for such a finding, the issue of mootness was not raised or argued before me. I nevertheless observe that, on my view of this case, Ms. Graham's right to proceed to arbitration is far from moot; it is the alleged non-existence of this right which gives rise to Coseco's abuse of process argument.
Indexed as: Rano v. Commercial Union Assurance Co. Between: Teresa Rano, applicant, and Commercial Union Assurance Company, insurer
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 A97-001056 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 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 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 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 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 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: KAMALAVELU VADIVELU Applicant and STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY Insurer DECISION ON A
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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA256/05. ANTHONY ARBUTHNOT Respondent. William Young P, Arnold and Ellen France JJ
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA256/05 BETWEEN AND THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF WORK AND INCOME Appellant ANTHONY ARBUTHNOT Respondent Hearing: 24 August 2006 Court: Counsel: William
More informationREASONS FOR DECISION
Financial Services Commission of Ontario Commission des services financiers de l Ontario BETWEEN: AHMAD FARID Applicant and AVIVA CANADA INC. Insurer REASONS FOR DECISION Before: Arbitrator Marcel D. Mongeon
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 informationIN THE MATTER OF THE INSURANCE ACT, R.S.O. 1990, c. I. 8, s. 268 and Regulation 283/95 there under;
IN THE MATTER OF THE INSURANCE ACT, R.S.O. 1990, c. I. 8, s. 268 and Regulation 283/95 there under; AND IN THE MATTER OF THE ARBITRATION ACT, S.O. 1991, c. 17; AND IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION BETWEEN:
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 informationMeloche Monnex Insurance Company, Defendant. R. D. Rollo, Counsel, for the Defendant ENDORSEMENT
CITATION: Zefferino v. Meloche Monnex Insurance, 2012 ONSC 154 COURT FILE NO.: 06-23974 DATE: 2012-01-09 SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO RE: Nicola Zefferino, Plaintiff AND: Meloche Monnex Insurance
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 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 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 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 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 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 informationOFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF ARBITRATIONS
Financial Services Commission of Ontario Commission des services financiers de l'ontario OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF ARBITRATIONS Appeal P03-00013 SVETLANA IANKILEVITCH Appellant Respondent by Cross-Appeal
More informationIN THE MATTER OF SECTION 268 OF THE INSURANCE ACT, R.S.O. C.1.8 and ONTARIO REGULATION 283/95;
IN THE MATTER OF SECTION 268 OF THE INSURANCE ACT, R.S.O. C.1.8 and ONTARIO 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 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 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: CERTAS
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 informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY CIV UNDER the Companies Act BLOSSOM WOOL LIMITED Applicant
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY CIV 2008-404-000161 UNDER the Companies Act 1993 BETWEEN AND BLOSSOM WOOL LIMITED Applicant JAMES WILLIAM PIPER Respondent AND UNDER the Companies Act
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 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 informationCOURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO
BETWEEN COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO CITATION: Royal & Sun Alliance Insurance Company of Canada v. Intact Insurance Company, 2017 ONCA 381 DATE: 20170510 DOCKET: C62842 Juriansz, Brown and Miller JJ.A.
More informationIN THE MATTER of the Insurance Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.i.8, s. 268 (as amended) and Regulation 283/95 (as amended);
B E T W E E N : IN THE MATTER of the Insurance Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.i.8, s. 268 (as amended) and Regulation 283/95 (as amended); AND IN THE MATTER of the Arbitration Act,1991, S.O. 1991, c.17, (as amended);
More informationCITATION: Unifund Assurance Company v. ACE INA Insurance Company, 2017 ONSC 3677 COURT FILE NO.: CV DATE: ONTARIO
CITATION: Unifund Assurance Company v. ACE INA Insurance Company, 2017 ONSC 3677 COURT FILE NO.: CV-16-555856 DATE: 20170620 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN: Unifund Assurance Company and ACE
More informationMINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE. and ROBERT MCNALLY. Dealt with in writing without appearance of parties.
CORAM: NEAR J.A. DE MONTIGNY J.A. Date: 20151106 Docket: A-358-15 Citation: 2015 FCA 248 BETWEEN: MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE and Appellant ROBERT MCNALLY Respondent Dealt with in writing without appearance
More informationONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE DIVISIONAL COURT SACHS, WILTON-SIEGEL, MYERS JJ. ) ) ) Respondents )
CITATION: Papp v. Stokes 2018 ONSC 1598 DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: DC-17-0000047-00 DATE: 20180309 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE DIVISIONAL COURT SACHS, WILTON-SIEGEL, MYERS JJ. BETWEEN: Adam Papp
More informationTHE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Promulgated On 9 July 2014 On 9 July Before. Deputy Upper Tribunal Judge Pickup Between
Upper Tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: IA/32415/2013 THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Field House Determination Promulgated On 9 July 2014 On 9 July 2014 Before Deputy Upper Tribunal
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 informationREASONS AND DECISION
Ontario Commission des 22nd Floor 22e étage Securities valeurs mobilières 20 Queen Street West 20, rue queen ouest Commission de l Ontario Toronto ON M5H 3S8 Toronto ON M5H 3S8 IN THE MATTER OF THE SECURITIES
More informationDECISION WITH RESPECT TO PRELIMINARY ISSUE
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 ARBITRATION B E
More informationIN THE MATTER OF THE INSURANCE ACT, R.S.O. 1990, c. I. 8, as amended, section 268 and Regulation 283/95 made thereunder;
IN THE MATTER OF THE INSURANCE ACT, R.S.O. 1990, c. I. 8, as amended, section 268 and Regulation 283/95 made thereunder; AND IN THE MATTER OF THE ARBITRATION ACT, 1991 S.O. 1991, c. 17; as amended; AND
More informationHEARING DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE OF THE ASSOCIATION OF CHARTERED CERTIFIED ACCOUNTANTS
DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE OF THE ASSOCIATION OF CHARTERED CERTIFIED ACCOUNTANTS REASONS FOR DECISION In the matter of: Mr Jawad Raza Heard on: Thursday 7 and Friday 8 June 2018 Location: ACCA Head Offices,
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 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 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 informationCITATION: Tree-Techol Tree Technology v. Via Rail Canada Inc., 2017 ONSC 755 COURT FILE NO.: DATE:
CITATION: Tree-Techol Tree Technology v. Via Rail Canada Inc., 2017 ONSC 755 COURT FILE NO.: 14-45810 DATE: 2017-02-01 SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO RE: BEFORE: TREE-TECHOL TREE TECHNOLOGY AND RESEARCH
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 informationIN THE MATTER OF SECTION 268 OF THE INSURANCE ACT, R.S.O. C.1.8 and ONTARIO REGULATION 283/95;
IN THE MATTER OF SECTION 268 OF THE INSURANCE ACT, R.S.O. C.1.8 and ONTARIO REGULATION 283/95; AND IN THE MATTER OF THE ARBITRATION ACT, S.O. 1991, c. 17; AND IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION BETWEEN: THE
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 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 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 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 informationLAND COURT OF QUEENSLAND
LAND COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: PARTIES: Chin Hong Investments Corporation Pty Ltd as Tte v Valuer- General [2018] QLC 46 Chin Hong Investments Corporation Pty Ltd as Tte (appellant) v Valuer-General
More informationIN THE EMPLOYMENT COURT AUCKLAND [2013] NZEmpC 15 ARC 84/12. VULCAN STEEL LIMITED Plaintiff. KIREAN WONNOCOTT Defendant
IN THE EMPLOYMENT COURT AUCKLAND [2013] NZEmpC 15 ARC 84/12 IN THE MATTER OF a challenge to a determination of the Employment Relations Authority BETWEEN AND VULCAN STEEL LIMITED Plaintiff KIREAN WONNOCOTT
More informationIN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS FOR THE STATE OF DELAWARE IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS FOR THE STATE OF DELAWARE IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY RABRINDA CHOUDRY, and ) DEBJANI CHOUDRY, ) ) Defendants Below/Appellants, ) ) v. ) C.A. No. CPU4-12-000076 ) STATE OF
More information1 January 2010 (as amended 1 January 2015) Table of contents
Terms of Reference 1 January 2010 (as amended 1 January 2015) Table of contents Section A: Preliminary Matters 1. Introduction 1.1 Purpose of the Service 1.2 Principles that underpin FOS operations and
More informationTHE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA HELD AT JOHANNESBURG
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA Of interest to other judges THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA HELD AT JOHANNESBURG In the matter between: Case no: JR 1172/14 BROWNS, THE DIAMOND STORE Applicant and COMMISSION
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY CIV [2015] NZHC KIWIBANK LIMITED Defendant
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY CIV-2015-404-694 [2015] NZHC 1417 BETWEEN AND E-TRANS INTERNATIONAL FINANCE LIMITED Plaintiff KIWIBANK LIMITED Defendant Hearing: 23 April 2015 Appearances:
More informationREAL ESTATE AGENTS AUTHORITY (CAC20003) ACTIVE REAL ESTATE LIMITED (TRADING AS HARCOURTS JOHNSONVILLE)
Decision No: [2014] NZREADT 40 Reference No: READT 043/13 IN THE MATTER OF BETWEEN an appeal under s 111 of the Real Estate Agents Act 2008 ROBERT GARLICK Appellant AND REAL ESTATE AGENTS AUTHORITY (CAC20003)
More informationIN THE MATTER OF THE INSURANCE ACT, R.S.O. 1990, c. I. 8, as amended, section 268 and REGULATION 283/95;
IN THE MATTER OF THE INSURANCE ACT, R.S.O. 1990, c. I. 8, as amended, section 268 and REGULATION 283/95; AND IN THE MATTER OF THE ARBITRATION ACT, 1991 S.O.c. 17, as amended; AND IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION:
More informationIN THE MATTER OF THE INSURANCE ACT, R.S.O. 1990, c. I. 8, SECTION 275 and ONTARIO REGULATION 668
IN THE MATTER OF THE INSURANCE ACT, R.S.O. 1990, c. I. 8, SECTION 275 and ONTARIO REGULATION 668 AND IN THE MATTER OF THE ARBITRATION ACT, S.O. 1991, c. 17; AND IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION BETWEEN:
More informationONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE. ) ) Defendants ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
CITATION: Hazaveh v. Pacitto, 2018 ONSC 395 COURT FILE NO.: CV-10-404841 DATE: 20180116 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN: FARZAD BIKMOHAMMADI-HAZAVEH Plaintiff and RBC GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY
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 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 informationIN THE MATTER OF THE INSURANCE ACT, R.S.O. 1990, c. I. 8, and REGULATION 283/95. 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 AND IN THE MATTER OF THE ARBITRATION ACT, S.O. 1991, c. 17; AND IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION BETWEEN: CERTAS DIRECT INSURANCE
More informationEDITORIAL NOTE: NO SUPPRESSION APPLIED. IN THE DISTRICT COURT AT QUEENSTOWN CIV [2016] NZDC 2055
EDITORIAL NOTE: NO SUPPRESSION APPLIED. IN THE DISTRICT COURT AT QUEENSTOWN CIV-2014-059-000156 [2016] NZDC 2055 BETWEEN AND JAMES VELASCO BUENAVENTURA Plaintiff ROWENA GONZALES BURGESS Defendant Hearing:
More informationIN THE MATTER OF THE INSURANCE ACT, R.S.O. 1990, c. I.8, s268 and REGULATION 283/95; 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, s268 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: ZURICH INSURANCE
More informationMr B Archer, solicitor
VICTORIAN CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL CIVIL DIVISION DOMESTIC BUILDING LIST VCAT REFERENCE NO. D916/2006 CATCHWORDS Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998 s 109 - application for an
More informationLim Kitt Ping Lynnette v People s Insurance Co Ltd and another
914 SINGAPORE LAW REPORTS (REISSUE) [1997] 1 SLR(R) Lim Kitt Ping Lynnette v People s Insurance Co Ltd and another [1997] SGHC 122 High Court Suit No 2235 of 1992 Kan Ting Chiu J 11, 12 February; 12 May
More informationProcess and methods Published: 18 February 2014 nice.org.uk/process/pmg18
Guide to the technology appraisal aisal and highly specialised technologies appeal process Process and methods Published: 18 February 2014 nice.org.uk/process/pmg18 NICE 2014. All rights reserved. Contents
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 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 informationIN THE EMPLOYMENT COURT AUCKLAND [2018] NZEmpC 33 ARC 98/13 ARC 22/14. LSG SKY CHEFS NEW ZEALAND LIMITED First Defendant
IN THE EMPLOYMENT COURT AUCKLAND IN THE MATTER OF AND IN THE MATTER BETWEEN AND AND AND [2018] NZEmpC 33 ARC 98/13 ARC 22/14 challenges to determinations of the Employment Relations Authority of an application
More informationIN THE MATTER of the Insurance Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.1.8, s. 268 (as amended) and Regulation 283/95 (as amended);
B E T W E E N : IN THE MATTER of the Insurance Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.1.8, s. 268 (as amended) and Regulation 283/95 (as amended); AND IN THE MATTER of the Arbitration Act, 1991, S.O. 1991, c.17, (as amended);
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 informationFirst Bowring Insurance Brokers (Pty) Limited DETERMINATION IN TERMS OF SECTION 30M OF THE PENSION FUNDS ACT OF 1956
IN THE TRIBUNAL OF THE PENSION FUNDS ADJUDICATOR CASE NO. PFA/GA/387/98/LS IN THE COMPLAINT BETWEEN C G M Wilson Complainant AND First Bowring Staff Pension Fund First Bowring Insurance Brokers (Pty) Limited
More informationIN THE EMPLOYMENT COURT CHRISTCHURCH [2017] NZEmpC 58 EMPC 178/2016. AFFCO NEW ZEALAND LIMITED Plaintiff
IN THE EMPLOYMENT COURT CHRISTCHURCH IN THE MATTER OF BETWEEN AND [2017] NZEmpC 58 EMPC 178/2016 proceedings removed from the Employment Relations Authority AFFCO NEW ZEALAND LIMITED Plaintiff NEW ZEALAND
More informationREASONS FOR DECISION
Financial Services Commission of Ontario Commission des services financiers de l Ontario BETWEEN: JULIA LO-PAPA Applicant and CERTAS DIRECT INSURANCE COMPANY Insurer REASONS FOR DECISION Before: Heard:
More informationINSURANCE LAW BULLETIN
1500 148 Fullarton Street London, ON N6A 5P3 www.shillingtons.ca INSURANCE LAW BULLETIN September 22, 2017 Rose Bilash & Justin Vanden Ende (Student-at-Law) FSCO Finds MIG Unconstitutional Maybe the LAT
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 informationRE: Ayr Farmers Mutual Insurance Company v. CGU Group Canada Ltd. RULING
COURT FILE NO.: C-48/03 DATE: 20030409 SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO RE: Ayr Farmers Mutual Insurance Company v. CGU Group Canada Ltd. BEFORE: The Honourable Mr. Justice R.D. Reilly COUNSEL: D. Dyer,
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 informationRent in advance not a deposit: Court of Appeal latest
Rent in advance not a deposit: Court of Appeal latest The Court of Appeal in their latest judgement has confirmed that rent paid in advance is not a deposit. This was the case of Johnson vs Old which was
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 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 informationIN THE EMPLOYMENT COURT CHRISTCHURCH [2010] NZEMPC 144 CRC 25/10. DEREK WAYNE GILBERT Applicant
IN THE EMPLOYMENT COURT CHRISTCHURCH [2010] NZEMPC 144 CRC 25/10 IN THE MATTER OF BETWEEN AND application for leave to file challenge out of time DEREK WAYNE GILBERT Applicant TRANSFIELD SERVICES (NEW
More informationM. M. (No. 3) v. WIPO
Organisation internationale du Travail Tribunal administratif International Labour Organization Administrative Tribunal M. M. (No. 3) v. WIPO 125th Session Judgment No. 3946 THE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,
More informationSECTION 5. SMALL CASE PROCEDURE FOR REQUESTING COMPETENT AUTHORITY ASSISTANCE.01 General.02 Small Case Standards.03 Small Case Filing Procedure
Rev. Proc. 2002 52 SECTION 1. PURPOSE OF THE REVENUE PROCEDURE SECTION 2. SCOPE.01 In General.02 Requests for Assistance.03 Authority of the U.S. Competent Authority.04 General Process.05 Failure to Request
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 informationSpecial Awards and the LAT Clear Legislative Intent or Delegation. Thomas R. Hughes, (Capt (Ret), CD, BA, JD) Zarek Taylor Grossman Hanrahan LLP
Special Awards and the LAT Clear Legislative Intent or Delegation Thomas R. Hughes, (Capt (Ret), CD, BA, JD) Zarek Taylor Grossman Hanrahan LLP Introduction This paper intends to briefly cover the issue
More information