Arbitration determines Insured's Accident Benefits must be Reassessed
To address the backlog of cases and disputes needing to be resolved by Ontario courts, the Ontario legal system has established alternative dispute resolution methods that eliminate the longer and more expensive trial process. Two of these methods include mediation and arbitration. The most significant difference between mediation and arbitration is that no ruling is made in the former, as opposed to the latter. Mediation simply seeks to guide parties to a mutual agreement, as opposed to arbitration, which involves a neutral third party, the arbitrator, who listens to testimony from both sides and makes a ruling that is legally binding by the Courts.
-
Did Ms. Arruda's injuries fall outside the Minor Injury Guideline?
-
Was Ms. Arruda entitled to Income Replacement Benefits (IRB) up to the 104-week mark (period from a week after the accident to 104 weeks later), as well as post 104-week mark?
-
If Ms. " Arruda was entitled to IRB up to the 104-week mark, at how much?
-
Was Ms. Arruda entitled to receive Medical/Cost of Examination Benefits for a series of assessments, as well as the ambulance bill?
-
Was Ms. Arruda owed any interest on any outstanding benefits?
-
Was Western Assurance liable to pay a special award to Ms. Arruda?
-
Was Western Assurance required to pay Ms. Arruda's expenses for the arbitration hearing?
Expertise.
Share
Subscribe to our Newsletter