skip to main content
Back to Top


Sep 1, 2017

Hughes Amys' Sabina Arulampalam successfully defends non-earner benefits claim before FSCO Arbitrator

Posted in Accident Benefits

Author Michael S. Teitelbaum

Related Lawyers Sabina Arulampalam and Linda Kiley

Congratulations to our Sabina Arulampalam who was successful in the defence of a SABS non-earner benefits claim in which FSCO Arbitrator King held that the applicant had not established entitlement to such benefits.

In Graveline and Intact, the applicant was involved in a November 2009 single vehicle accident. Arbitrator King held that the "medical and other documentation does not support a finding that the Applicant was in perfect health around the time of the accident as he claimed, or that he broke his neck in the accident, or that any resulting impairment(s) continuously prevented him from carrying on all his pre-accident activities".

The Arbitrator also held that in terms of the strict test for proving entitlement to non-earner benefits, (per, among other decisions, the Ontario Court of Appeal's in Heath v. Economical), "[e]ven if I were satisfied that as a result of the accident the Applicant suffered impairment(s) which prevented him from taking part in substantially all of his typical pre-accident activities, I am not satisfied that any such impairment(s) was continuous".

The Arbitrator also stated:

"Absent reliable and contemporaneous evidence to the contrary, I rely on the report provided by the Applicant's neurosurgeon issued on November 10, 2010..., which indicated that one year after the accident, the Applicant's pain had resolved and that he only had discomfort in his neck 'occasionally'. I find that within the two years after the accident, any impairments suffered as a result of the accident were more than just briefly interrupted and were not continuous. Therefore the Applicant does not qualify for non-earner benefits."

The Arbitrator also noted that the insurer was prepared to introduce expert evidence at the hearing and she made the procedural decision not to hear from its experts. She noted that "[a]s the Applicant had not been successful at proving that he was entitled to the non-earner benefit, requiring the Applicant to travel from his home in Elliott Lake to attend further hearing days in Sudbury and potentially expose him to unnecessary increased expenses would be inappropriate and would demonstrate a lack of respect for the Applicant".

Sabina advises that she benefited from the support and guidance of our Linda Kiley.

Well Done, Sabina and Linda!

The non-cuttable and non-pasteable version of the decision is attached.


  • SABS
  • entitlement to accident benefits
  • FSCO
  • non-earner benefits

Related Team


Linda Kiley

Email me

P: (416) 367-1608 ext 245 (416) 367-1608 ext 245

Toronto (800) 565-1713 (800) 565-1713

Read Bio

Related BLAWGS


Ont. C.A. Upholds Dismissal of Court Application Challenging LAT’s Jurisdiction over SABS disputes, agreeing Applicant lacked standing

In the Blawg-posted case of Campisi v Ontario (Attorney General), a challenge to the amended section 280 of the Insurance Act granting sole jurisdiction of the Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) over statutory accident benefits (SAB......


Ont. Div. Ct. dismisses application for judicial review of LAT decision upholding limitation period

In Tomec v Economical Mutual Insurance Company, 2018 ONSC 5664, a three judge panel of the Divisional Court dismissed the appellant (claimant)’s application for judicial review of the Licence Appeal Tribunal’s decision finding tha......


Ont. Div. Ct. dismisses judicial review application appealing LAT adjudicator’s finding that failure to elect a benefit precluded claimant from seeking entitlement to Non-Earner Benefits at the LAT

In Lefebvre v. Aviva Insurance Company of Canada, 2018 ONSC 5676, a three-judge panel of the Divisional Court dismissed the claimant’s application for judicial review of a Licence Appeal Tribunal adjudicator’s finding that the cla......

The BLAWG on this website and the material published on it, including the links to other websites, are made available by the lawyer and law firm publisher for educational purposes only as well as to give the BLAWG's readers general information and a general understanding of the law, and not to provide specific legal advice. This BLAWG is for general informational purposes only, and use of this BLAWG does not create a Lawyer-Client Relationship. Hughes Amys LLP is a law firm and most of the information on the BLAWG relates to legal topics and cases. Hughes Amys LLP does not offer or dispense legal advice through this BLAWG or by e-mails directed to or from this site. By using the BLAWG, the reader agrees that the information on this BLAWG does not constitute legal or other professional advice and no lawyer-client or other relationship is created between the reader and Hughes Amys LLP or its lawyers. The BLAWG is not a substitute for obtaining legal advice from a qualified lawyer. The information on the BLAWG may be changed without notice and is not guaranteed to be complete, correct or up-to-date. While the BLAWG is revised on a regular basis, it may not reflect the most current legal developments. Any comments, views or opinions expressed at or through the BLAWG are intended to provide general commentary on the law and legal issues, and are not intended for or should be understood as being posted for any other purpose. The BLAWG should not be used as a substitute for securing appropriate legal advice from a licensed professional lawyer in respect of particular facts and circumstances. Please use your own good judgment before choosing to act on any information included in the BLAWG, doing so entirely at your own risk.
  • Canadian Lawyer - Top 10 Boutique 2017-18
  • The ARC Group
  • Best Lawyers 2017
  • Canadian Legal Lexpert Directory 2016

© 201​6-17 All rights reserved | Legal Disclaimer | Privacy Policy | Accessibility