Category: LAT Rules

M.R. v. Allstate Insurance Company (17-008969)

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.

P.M. v. Aviva Insurance Company (19-002717)

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.

M.H. v. Western Assurance Company (18-009498)

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.

J.G. v. The Co-operators General Insurance Company (18-012430)

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.

Z.L. v. Certas Direct Insurance Company (18-004297)

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.

S.B. v. Aviva Insurance Company (17-001414)

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.

D.T. v. Wawanesa Mutual Insurance Company (18-005613)

The claimant sought entitlement to IRBs, the MIG, and various medical benefits. The insurer argued that the claimant’s entitlement to IRBs had already been decided and was res judicata. The Tribunal had already adjudicated an application for IRBs (among other things), which was upheld on reconsideration and at the Divisional Court. There was no new evidence to support that the claimant had additional injuries or conditions. The new medicolegal reports the claimant obtained could have been obtained prior to the first hearing.

P.Y. v Aviva General Insurance Company (17-003692)

The claimant sought reconsideration of the Tribunal’s decision based on there being new evidence that the claimant could not have reasonably obtained earlier and based on the insurer’s concession at the close of the proceedings that the MIG did not apply. Adjudicator Grieves granted the claimant’s reconsideration request. Adjudicator Grieves accepted that the new evidence, being a s. 25 psychological report, was not reasonably available to the claimant at the time of the hearing and would have affected the Tribunal’s result with respect to its MIG finding. Adjudicator Grieves also criticized the parties for not advising the Tribunal that the insurer had agreed at the close of proceedings to remove the claimant from the MIG, as this would have affected the Tribunal’s result. Adjudicator Grieves ordered that the matter be sent back to the Tribunal to determine the reasonableness and necessity of the disputed treatments plans as the claimant was now out of the MIG.

C.S. v. Aviva Insurance Company (18-007039)

The claimant sought reconsideration of a motion order denying the request to strike the insurer’s evidence. Associate Chair Batty dismissed the reconsideration because it was not related to a final order.

K.A. v. TD Insurance Company (18-009613)

The insurer sought reconsideration of a motion order denying the request to adjourn the scheduled hearing. Associate Chair Batty dismissed the reconsideration because it was not related to a final order.