Category: Costs

E.K. v. Unifund Assurance Company (17-000897)

The parties were able to resolve the dispute during the Case Conference. The claimant sought costs and a special award. Adjudicator Makos denied both claims. He wrote that the insurer’s delay in payment of the disputed benefits was not unreasonable in light of the lack of medical information provided by the claimant prior to the Case Conference. However, he accepted that the Tribunal did have the jurisdiction to make a special award even if the insurer had paid a benefit shortly before a hearing.

B.F. v. Wawanesa Mutual Insurance Company (16-000433)

The claimant sought costs in the amount of $1,000 for the insurer’s failure to produce documents in accordance with the Case Conference Order. Adjudicator Lester awarded costs of $250, reasoning that the insurer had been disrespectful of the Tribunal’s process.

M.M.S. v. Wawanesa Mutual Insurance Company (16-000435)

The claimant sought costs in the amount of $1,000 for the insurer’s failure to produce documents in accordance with the Case Conference Order. Adjudicator Lester awarded costs of $250, reasoning that the insurer had been disrespectful of the Tribunal’s process.

P.B. v. RBC Insurance Company (16-000284)

The claimant submitted an accounting report in respect of an IRB quantum. The insurer paid $2,500.00 per section 7(5) of the SABS. The claimant sought a further amount for HST. Adjudicator Sewrattan dismissed the claim for outstanding HST. The adjudicator also dismissed the claim for costs made by the insurer, stating that cost awards are to maintain civility and order during proceedings, to deter conduct that threatens the orderly and civil resolution of an application, and to ensure that the Tribunal’s process and the other participants are respected. They are not to compensate parties for the cost of bringing or defending claims, or to punish.

N.P.M.T. v. State Farm Insurance Company (16-002709)

The claimant withdrew the LAT application at the Case Conference. The insurer objected and sought costs. Adjudicator Treksler stated that the mere withdrawal of an application will “rarely, if ever, be a sufficient basis on which the Tribunal will make a costs order.” The claimant’s application and subsequent withdrawal did not rise to the level required in Rule 19.1 to warrant costs.

J.T. v. Intact Insurance Company (16-000041)

Rule 19.1 provides that costs may be requested during a proceeding if a party, during a proceeding, acts unreasonably, frivolously, vexatiously and/or in bad faith. Correspondence which took place prior to the LAT application cannot be considered under Rule 19.1. A special award was not given because the insurer did not “withhold or delay” payment of accident benefits while it awaited updated medical records.

Applicant v. Aviva (16-000474)

This is a reconsideration of the LAT’s failure to consider a request for costs by the insurer following the claimant’s withdrawal of a LAT application. Executive Chair Lamoureux concluded that it was a violation of procedural fairness for the Tribunal to have failed to consider the insurer’s request for costs. The matter was sent back to an adjudicator for consideration. However, Executive Chair Lamoureux wrote that the withdrawal of a LAT application would rarely, if ever, be a sufficient basis on which to award costs.

Applicant v. Intact Insurance Company (16-000041)

This decision addressed whether the LAT had jurisdiction to award costs after all accident benefits in dispute were resolved. Adjudicators Treksler and Richards concluded that the LAT did retain jurisdiction to award costs after the parties had resolved the accident benefits in dispute.