A Tribunal hearing began regarding the claimant’s entitlement to NEBs and the cost of assessments. Shortly after the start of the hearing, Adjudicator Paluch determined that he was involved in a similar hearing involving the relationship between counsel and the clinics the claimant attended. He ordered himself recused from the matter on the basis that a reasonable apprehension of bias could arise. A new hearing was scheduled with a different adjudicator.
The claimant sought reconsideration of the Tribunal’s decision to adjourn a preliminary motion to be heard by the hearing adjudicator. Associate Chair Batty held that the adjournment decision was not a final order and dismissed the reconsideration request.
The claimant’s counsel sought reconsideration of the Tribunal’s decision to allow the adjuster to represent himself, and an order putting the claimant on notice that failure to participate in the next Case Conference would result in a dismissal of the claim. Associate Chair Batty dismissed the reconsideration because it was not in relation to a final order.
The claimant sought entitlement to IRBs. The claimant failed to attend the scheduled hearing and did not submit any evidence in support of the claim. Vice Chair Shapiro dismissed the claim.
The claimant sought reconsideration of the Tribunal’s denial of ACBs and order barring the claim for medical benefits based on IE Non-Attendance; the Tribunal had awarded IRBs. Adjudicator Mazerolle held that the Tribunal denials did not meet the criteria in Rule 18 for reconsideration. However, Adjudicator Mazerolle found that the award of IRBs beyond the 104-week mark was an error and that the claimant had not led evidence to support IRBs on the “complete inability” test.
The claimant sought reconsideration of the Tribunal’s motion order that permitted the insurer to cross-examine the claimant on her affidavit. Associate Chair Batty dismissed the reconsideration request because it was not a final order disposing of the dispute.
The claimant sought reconsideration of the Tribunal’s decision that the claim for IRBs was barred by the limitation period. The claimant also sought further benefits, which were not addressed in the preliminary hearing. Associate Chair Batty dismissed the reconsideration request because it was not a final order disposing of the entire dispute.
The claimant sought reconsideration of the Tribunal’s decision that the claim for NEBs was barred by the limitation period. The claimant also sought further benefits, which were not addressed in the preliminary hearing. Associate Chair Batty dismissed the reconsideration request because it was not a final order disposing of the entire dispute.
The claimant sought removal from the MIG and entitlement to three medical benefits. Adjudicator Boyce dismissed the claim and held that the claimant had abandoned the application due to his failure to submit and written submissions or participate in any of the preliminary stages of the LAT dispute.
The claimant sought reconsideration of the Tribunal’s decision that his injuries fell within the MIG and that he was not entitled to claimed medical benefits. The issue of the MIG was accidentally included in the LAT application, and the claimant had been removed from the MIG prior to the hearing based on an IE. Adjudicator Lester held that it was an error for the Tribunal to make a decision on the MIG when it was not an issue in dispute. The error resulted in the medical benefits not being adjudicated. The hearing adjudicator was ordered seized of the matter to make a determination on whether the medical benefits were reasonable and necessary.
150 York Street, Suite 1800
Toronto, Ontario M5H 3S5
416.507.1850
150 York Street, Suite 1800
Toronto, Ontario M5H 3S5
416.507.1850
© 2020 Thomas Gold Pettingill LLP Disclaimer | Privacy Policy | Statement of Principles
Powered by Crow & Pitcher
150 York Street, Suite 1800
Toronto, Ontario M5H 3S5
416.507.1850