The insurer filed a motion requesting that the Tribunal strike the claimant’s reply submissions, contending that the claimant had split his case and provided new submissions in his reply, which prevented the insurer from responding. The insurer argued that is was not only improper but contrary to procedural fairness, and the insurer sought permission to provide sur-reply submissions. Vice-Chair Maedel granted the insurers motion in part, agreeing that the claimant has split the case and provided arguments that could have been anticipated and included as part of his initial submissions. Some portions of the reply submissions were however proper and allowed to stand. The insurers request for sur-reply submissions was also denied. Vice-Chair Maedel stated that sur-reply submissions are a remedy that ought to be rarely imposed and are only necessary where a party has made additional legal arguments or introduced addition issues in reply, provided an inaccurate statement of law, or an inaccurate statement of fact critical to the determination of issues in dispute.
Menu