The matter had a long history of adjournments, partly due to Covid protocols and partly due to adjournment requests from the parties. During a Case Conference on October 23, 2019, the hearing was adjourned and an in-person hearing was scheduled for June of 2020. In April of 2020, the Tribunal informed the parties that the hearing would not be proceeding, however, if both parties consented, the hearing format would be transferred to a videoconference hearing. The insurer did not consent to the change in format. On May 8, 2020, the claimant filed a Notice of Motion to change the hearing format to a teleconference hearing, but the Tribunal declined due to the number of witnesses and potential documentary evidence issues. A Case Conference was then scheduled for June 29, 2020 and both parties consented to a three-day in-person hearing in March of 2021. In October of 2020, the format was changed to a videoconference hearing due to Covid protocols. The claimant filed for an adjournment of proceedings and the videoconference was rescheduled to March of 2022. Four days prior to the hearing, the claimant filed another Notice of Motion requesting a written hearing, alleging that the claimant was not mentally prepared, and that testifying at a videoconference hearing would have a negative effect on his mental health. The insurer objected under Rule 15.2 and 15.2 of the Common Rules, noting that it was entitled to at least 10 days notice of a Motion prior to a hearing, and a right to provide a meaningful response. Furthermore, the insurer argued that allowing the Motion to proceed on such short notice would prejudice its ability to respond properly as witnesses had already been prepared, costs were incurred, and it was prepared to proceed. The insurer did not object to the format being changed, rather the hearing being adjourned again with less than two business days notice. The motion was set to be heard at the hearing. Adjudicator Kaur noted that accommodations for disability, including psychological disabilities, were included in the Ontario Human Rights Code, and that the claimant could have requested an accommodation. Furthermore, the adjudicator noted that there was no evidence of the disability itself, simply the word of claimant. While Adjudicator Kaur did acknowledge that the claimant had been diagnosed with psychological conditions by Dr. Shaul, the reports were four-years old, and no further evidence had been presented. Adjudicator Kaur ruled that further delays on such short notice would not be of benefit to either party, and would simply continue to delay the matter further. Claimant’s counsel attended the first day of the hearing and again requested an adjournment, stating that he did not have instructions from the claimant to proceed. The request was denied. Claimant’s counsel did not participate in the hearing and stated that he did not have instructions to do so. The insurer in turn declined to call its witnesses and requested that the matter be dismissed in its entirety, as the burden of proof to medical benefits was on the claimant, who refused to participate. Adjudicator Kaur agreed and the matter was dismissed.
Menu