In the past dozen years, Scott has been retained to arbitrate hundreds of disputes. He has presided over numerous arbitration hearings involving viva voce witness evidence, and multiple documentary exhibits. Scott has authored over 40 arbitration awards, with several involving new or novel points of law requiring precedent setting decisions.
Not only does Scott have the expertise and experience to render a fair and just determination of a dispute, several of his arbitration awards have been specifically recognized by the courts for their detailed analysis and the correctness of their conclusions.
For example, Scott’s precedent setting decision concerning the application of the Limitations Act, 2002, to loss transfer claims under section 275 of the Insurance Act was approved of and affirmed by the Superior Court. The Court of Appeal then effectively adopted Scott’s reasoning when it upheld the Superior Court’s decision (Markel v. ING, 2012 ONCA 218 (CanLII)).
In another case, the Superior Court adopted Scott’s analysis from an arbitration award in which he navigated the complexities of interpreting the definition of “Accident” in the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule. The Court stated: “The law on the interpretation of (the definition of “Accident”) was recently and thoroughly canvassed by Arbitrator Scott Densem…I find the analysis of Arbitrator Densem to be persuasive…” (Barros v. Shah, 2012 ONSC 3693 (CanLII)).
Scott is most often retained to arbitrate Statutory Accident Benefit disputes between insurers. These can take the form of priority disputes under section 268 of the Insurance Act, or loss transfer disputes under section 275 of the Insurance Act. Proceedings are governed by the Arbitration Act, 1991, and the Statutory Powers Procedure Act.
Virtually any dispute can be arbitrated by agreement of the parties pursuant to an arbitration agreement, with rights of appeal reserved to the courts, if desired. Scott has the experience and skills to arbitrate many types of disputes and is quite willing to consider arbitrating matters other than priority and loss transfer disputes.
Considering the current, long-standing backlog of cases in our courts, Scott has suggested to clients a modern, cost-effective approach whereby they consider arbitrating some cases rather than being unnecessarily bound to the traditional trial process. Arbitration would work best for cases where the parties agreed that a jury was not required. In essence, it would resemble a “judge alone” trial. Retaining Scott to arbitrate a case that was within his broad range of insurance law knowledge would guarantee the parties a decision maker with expertise suited to the case. This would most assuredly be preferable to the traditional reliance on the “luck of the draw” to determine whether the parties will be assigned the most appropriate judge for the case.
Arbitration would probably turn out to be less expensive given that the arbitration process tends to be more flexible than the trial process, making it more likely that arbitration would require fewer hearing days than trial.
Please contact Emily, or Scott directly to discuss the details of any matter for which you are interested in retaining Scott as arbitrator.