Category: LAT Rules

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 had filed two LAT applications: one addressing NEBs and five treatment plans; the second addressing a catastrophic impairment determination. The claimant had exhausted her medical benefits and would only be entitled to the disputed treatment plans if she suffered a catastrophic impairment. A hearing was scheduled on the first application, while the second application had not yet gone through the Case Conference. The insurer sought an order that the treatment plans be removed from the first application because they could not be awarded until the catastrophic impairment determination was made. The Case Conference adjudicator denied the request. The insurer requested reconsideration, and Vice Chair Trojek also denied the request. Instead, she ordered that the scheduled hearing be adjourned and that the two LAT applications be combined so that all issues could be determined at once. She reasoned that approach was the most cost effective and just determination of all issues.

The insurer sought an adjournment of the scheduled Case Conference to allow time for CAT assessment to be completed. The Tribunal refused the requested. Associate Chair Batty also refused the adjournment request, stating that the assessments need to be completed by the time of the Case Conference for the insurer to participate. The insurer’s defence did not need to be finalized by the Case Conference, and the claim was not being adjudicated during the Case Conference.

The claimant had requested an adjournment of a written hearing due to her counsel’s unanticipated medical leave. The LAT refused the adjournment. On reconsideration, Vice Chair Trojek granted the adjournment and set new dates for the written hearing. She wrote that the Tribunal relied too heavily on a strict adherence with its rules and failed to take into consideration the unforeseen and uncontrollable circumstances which were supported by documentary evidence.