The Tribunal granted the claimant’s request to have two applications heard together. The insurer sought reconsideration. Vice Chair Batty dismissed the request on the basis that the Tribunal’s order was not an order that finally disposed of an appeal. Because the proceeding was ongoing, the insurer could not yet seek reconsideration.
The Tribunal ordered the insurer to produce the adjuster’s log notes, the complete accident benefits file, and raw data from IE assessors. The insurer sought reconsideration. Vice Chair Batty dismissed the request, reasoning that the disputed orders were not decisions that finally disposed of the appeal.
The claimant brought a motion to exclude the transcripts from the criminal proceeding. Adjudicator Maedel dismissed the motion, holding that admissibility of evidence was to be left to the hearing adjudicator subject to relevance, privilege, or inadmissibility.
The claimant sought a request for reconsideration following a denied request to adjourn a hearing on consent. The Tribunal initially denied the adjournment request because there was no evidentiary basis to support the request. Associate Chair Batty granted the reconsideration request because the claimant submitted information that demonstrated compelling personal reasons why counsel could not attend on short notice. The hearing was too close to assign the file to another counsel and the respondent had consented to additional dates.
The claimant sought reconsideration of the adjudicator’s preliminary decision that IRBs and ACBs were statute barred and would not be addressed in the hearing. It was clear from review of the adjudicator’s decision that ACBs were not meant to be statute-barred, and the typographical error in the decision was amended pursuant to Rule 19. The reconsideration in relation to IRBs was dismissed in accordance with Rule 18 which prohibited reconsideration unless the decision finally disposed of the application.
The claimant sought production of log notes from the date of the first FSCO arbitration application up to the date of the LAT application. The insurer argued that these notes were protected by privilege. Adjudicator Fricot concluded that the log notes between the date of the FSCO arbitration application up to the date of the LAT application were producible if the notes pertained to one of the accident benefits in dispute, and were not protected by privilege. The insurer was required to consider each relevant log note entry and explain whether it was subject to litigation privilege or solicitor-client privilege. The insurer was also permitted to redact reserve information.
The claimant sought reconsideration of the Tribunal’s decision which declined to remove the insurer’s counsel of record. The claimant argued that because the firm representing the insurer had also represented one of the defendants in the earlier tort action, a conflict existed. Vice Chair Helt concluded that the Tribunal did not make an error and dismissed the reconsideration. She noted that the counsel involved was different in each case, and that there was no evidence that any information was shared between counsel. Further, counsel representing the tort defendant no longer worked at the same firm.
The claimant requested reconsideration of a Motion Order, in which Vice Chair Hunter granted the respondent’s motion to adjourn a written hearing scheduled for December 2018. The claimant submitted that reconsideration was warranted because the Tribunal erred in granting an adjournment in respect of the addition of treatment plans when none were in issue, the decision gave rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias, and the delay in the proceeding had resulted in prejudice to the claimant. Associate Chair Batty denied the request for reconsideration, concluding that the claimant had failed to establish grounds for reconsideration. He ordered the parties to comply with the Vice Chair’s Order, noting that a party seeking a reconsideration has a high onus to meet and that inconsequential procedural or substantive errors do not qualify for reconsideration.
The claimant brought a motion for the production of log notes; the insurer brought a motion for productions of various clinical notes and records. Adjudicator Hines granted both motions. She ordered the log notes up to the date of the IRB denial to be produced subject to redactions for litigation privilege and solicitor-client privilege. She also ordered that the requested clinical notes and records were relevant and should be produced.
The claimant sought entitlement to two medical benefits. The claimant also sought to add a new medical benefits claim as part of a written hearing. Adjudicator Punyarthi permitted the issue to be added, but held that it was not payable because a treatment plan had never been submitted in relation to the incurred treatment. The two medical benefits for physical therapy that were originally part of the dispute were not awarded because the claimant failed to demonstrate that passive treatment was warranted for her injuries.
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