The insurer sought costs after a claimant withdrew the claims at a case conference. Adjudicator Samia Makhamra reviewed the chronology of events that led to the withdrawal, which included the claimant using profane language during the case conference, and concluded that the behavior did not rise to the level to warrant a costs award.
The claimant sought accident benefits, however, withdrew the claim the day before a case conference. As a result, the insurer sought costs. Adjudicator Robert Watt held that the insurer did not establish the claimant acted in an unreasonable, vexatious, frivolous, or bad faith manner, during the proceedings. The withdrawal of the claim, though inconvenient, does not rise to the level warranting costs. To do so would have negative access to justice implications.
Two weeks prior to a scheduled hearing, the insurer accepted that the claimant had sustained a catastrophic impairment. The claimant sought costs. Adjudicator Paluch held that costs were not appropriate in the circumstances, and that the insurer had acted reasonably in initially relying upon the opinions of its medical assessors.
The claimant failed to provide records as ordered by the Case Conference adjudicator, and submitted his written materials 15 days late. The insurer sought to have the claim dismissed and requested costs. Adjudicator Paluch held that the dismissal of a claim should only occur with utmost caution in unusual circumstances. However, he was prepared to allow the insurer additional time to complete written submissions, and ordered that the claimant be barred from relying upon the late records. The adjudicator declined to make an order on costs and reasoned that it would be best for the hearing adjudicator to decide costs upon disposition of the matter.
The claimant sought entitlement to IRBs and various medical benefits. Adjudicator Sewrattan held that the claimant did not suffer a substantial inability to engage in his pre-accident work (he admitted to being able to drive, which was a major component of his job). He also held that the claimant was not entitled to proposed assessment or psychological treatment, but that two treatment plans for physical therapy were reasonable and necessary. The insurer was denied costs despite the claimant providing materials late, ignoring the page limit on written submissions, refusing to provide relevant records, and failing to abide by the Tribunal’s timelines.
The claimant brought an application before the LAT. One year following the case conference, the claimant withdrew the claim. The insurer sought its costs. Adjudicator Robert Watt reviewed Rule 19.1 and determined that withdrawing an application on the eve of a hearing did not constitute unreasonable, frivolous, vexations, or bad faith behaviour to warrant an award of costs. Access to justice was cited as a strong reason for denying the costs award and it was noted that a withdrawal will rarely, if ever, constitute behaviour warranting costs.
The claimant brought an application for a catastrophic determination. Prior to the hearing the insurer accepted the claimant as CAT and the hearing was cancelled. The claimant then brought a subsequent application before the LAT seeking costs from the previous LAT matter. Vice Chair Terry Hunter concluded the LAT did not have jurisdiction to entertain a stand-alone application for costs which related to conduct in a prior application. Moreover, the actions of the insurer did not raise to the level to award costs under Rule 19.1 and the governing jurisprudence.
The insurer sought an order for costs given the claimant twice failed to meet the filing deadlines prescribed by the case conference adjudicator. The representative of the claimant indicated that the deadlines were missed due to workload and illness. A doctor’s note was produced but did not provide an explanation as to why the claimant’s representative was unable to meet the deadlines. Adjudicator Rebecca Hines reviewed Rule 19 and accepted the medical note as proof the claimant’s representative was suffering from an illness. Making an order for costs would not be in line with procedural fairness and natural justice. Costs were not awarded and the request dismissed.
The insurer sought an order for costs given the claimant twice failed to meet the filing deadlines prescribed by the case conference adjudicator. The representative of the claimant indicated that the deadlines were missed due to workload and illness. A doctor’s note was produced but did not provide an explanation as to why the claimant’s representative was unable to meet the deadlines. Adjudicator Rebecca Hines reviewed Rule 19 and accepted the medical note as proof the claimant’s representative was suffering from an illness. Making an order for costs would not be in line with procedural fairness and natural justice. Costs were not awarded and the request dismissed.
The insurer sought an order for costs given the claimant twice failed to meet the filing deadlines prescribed by the case conference adjudicator. The representative of the claimant indicated that the deadlines were missed due to workload and illness. A doctor’s note was produced but did not provide an explanation as to why the claimant’s representative was unable to meet the deadlines. Adjudicator Rebecca Hines reviewed Rule 19 and accepted the medical note as proof the claimant’s representative was suffering from an illness. Making an order for costs would not be in line with procedural fairness and natural justice. Costs were not awarded and the request dismissed.
150 York Street, Suite 1800
Toronto, Ontario M5H 3S5
416.507.1850
© 2020 Thomas Gold Pettingill LLP Disclaimer | Privacy Policy | Statement of Principles
Subscribe to get TGP’s case summaries straight to your inbox
Subscribe to get TGP’s case summaries straight to your inbox
150 York Street, Suite 1800
Toronto, Ontario M5H 3S5
416.507.1850
© 2020 Thomas Gold Pettingill LLP