Category: Costs

M.S. v. Primmum Insurance Company (16-000546)

Following an earlier decision, in which the claimant’s case was dismissed, the insurer sought costs. Adjudicator Sewrattan reviewed the reasoning for the dismissal of the claimant’s case, which largely turned upon the claimant’s counsel failing to submit materials and evidence to the LAT. He concluded that the applicant had not acted unreasonably, but rather, that the applicant’s counsel had. Generally, Adjudicator Sewrattan would have considered the applicant and his counsel as one party, but given the exceptional facts in the case, he reasoned it was appropriate to distinguish the two. He also held that the LAT Rules did not permit an award of costs against the claimant’s counsel. Therefore, no costs were awarded.

M.S. v. Primmum Insurance Company (16-000546)

Following an earlier decision, in which the claimant’s case was dismissed, the insurer sought costs. Adjudicator Sewrattan reviewed the reasoning for the dismissal of the claimant’s case, which largely turned upon the claimant’s counsel failing to submit materials and evidence to the LAT. He concluded that the applicant had not acted unreasonably, but rather, that the applicant’s counsel had. Generally, Adjudicator Sewrattan would have considered the applicant and his counsel as one party, but given the exceptional facts in the case, he reasoned it was appropriate to distinguish the two. He also held that the LAT Rules did not permit an award of costs against the claimant’s counsel. Therefore, no costs were awarded.

Applicant v. TD General Insurance Company (16-002706)

The insurer sought entitlement to costs after the claimant withdrew an application before the LAT. The claimant also sought costs for having to resist the insurer’s costs motion. Adjudicator Belanger-Hardy noted that a withdrawal of an application alone will rarely, if ever, be a sufficient basis on which the Tribunal will make a costs order. Additionally, neither party led evidence of unreasonable, frivolous or vexatious behaviour or conduct in bad faith pursuant to Rule 19. No costs were awarded.

H.S. v. TD General Insurance Company (16-002705)

The insurer sought entitlement to costs after the claimant withdrew an application before the LAT. The claimant also sought costs for having to resist the insurer’s costs motion. Adjudicator Belanger-Hardy noted that a withdrawal of an application alone will rarely, if ever, be a sufficient basis on which the Tribunal will make a costs order. Additionally, neither party led evidence of unreasonable, frivolous or vexatious behaviour or conduct in bad faith pursuant to Rule 19. No costs were awarded.

Applicant v. Echelon (16-003223)

The claimant was involved in a serious accident in which his daughter was fatally injured. The claimant was deemed to have sustained a catastrophic impairment. The claimant sought entitlement to occupational therapy assistance. The insurer denied the treatment plan and stated there was no rehabilitative goal of consuming the treatment. On review of the medical evidence, Adjudicator Mather concluded the treatment plan was reasonable and necessary and awarded the benefit. The claimant sought costs and asked that a negative inference be drawn of the insurer’s behaviour due to its refusal to produce log notes. Costs were denied and no inference was made regarding the non-production of log notes, since the notes were considered not relevant to the issues in dispute.

A.G. v. Aviva Canada Inc. (17-000270)

The claimant sought entitlement to medical benefits. At the case conference the parties were able to resolve the issues with the exception of costs, which the claimant continued to seek. Adjudicator Truong reviewed Rule 19.1 and affirmed that costs may only arise out of the Tribunal process. While the claimant argued the insurer failed to respond to correspondence during the proceedings in a timely matter, Adjudicator Truong ruled that such action did not meet the bar for a costs award.

D.C. v. Aviva Insurance Company (16-002272)

The claimant withdrew her LAT application two weeks prior to the scheduled hearing. The insurer sought costs. Adjudicator Bickley rejected the claim for costs, and wrote that simply inconveniencing an opposing party did not amount to vexatious, frivolous, unreasonable, or bad faith behaviour. She also rejected FSCO case law concerning costs.

Applicant v. Waterloo Regional Municipalities Insurance (16-000066)

This reconsideration was requested by the insurer after the claimant’s request for reconsideration of a decision was rejected. In this matter, Executive Chair Lamoureux reviewed the purpose of costs at the LAT and the meaning of “frivolous” and “vexatious,” and declined the insurer’s requests for costs.

Applicant v. Waterloo Regional Municipalities Insurance (16-000066)

This reconsideration was requested by the insurer after the claimant’s request for reconsideration of a decision was rejected. In this matter, Executive Chair Lamoureux reviewed the purpose of costs at the LAT and the meaning of “frivolous” and “vexatious,” and declined the insurer’s requests for costs.

M.O. v. Unifund Assurance Company (17-000043)

The claimant sought entitlement to medical benefits and then she withdrew at a case conference, after the insurer objected to her non-attendance at an IE. The claimant then brought another LAT application for medical benefits. The insurer reiterated its objection that the claimant failed to attend a rescheduled IE, and she again withdrew at the case conference. The insurer requested costs. Adjudicator Anna Truong found that the second application for arbitration was frivolous, vexations, and unreasonable, under Rule 19. While the insurer requested $5,000.00, it was awarded $500.00, as Adjudicator Truong held that the award of costs is not meant to be an assessment of actual costs; rather, it is a deterrent.