The insurer brought a motion to dismiss the application after the claimant’s failure to submit any written materials. Adjudicator Watt granted the motion and dismissed the application. He reasoned that the claimant’s failure to bring a motion to extend the deadline for submissions after retaining new counsel amounted to an abuse of process, and that the matter should not proceed.
The insurer sought production of the settlement documents from an earlier accident the claimant was involved in. Adjudicator Neilson ordered the records produced. She held that it was relevant to the current dispute what the claimant was paid in her earlier claim, and how the benefits were allocated. She noted that there was no evidence that the earlier claim was settled as part of litigation, so no settlement privilege applied. However, even if settlement privilege had applied, she wrote that the public policy against double recovery or overcompensation would require the claimant to produce the settlement disclosure notice.
The claimant sought reconsideration of the Tribunal’s decision to deny attendant care and housekeeping benefits. The Tribunal had determined that the two year time limit for the claimant to dispute her entitlement had passed. The claimant filed her request for reconsideration outside of the 21 day period stipulated in the LAT Rules. Executive Chair Lamoureux rejected the reconsideration. She held that the claimant failed to provide acceptable reasons to justify the delay in requesting the reconsideration. She further held that the claimant failed to provide any evidence to suggest that the Tribunal erred in finding that the limitation period applied.
The claimant sought entitlement to a number of medical treatment plans. The insurer denied the treatment and asserted a MIG position. The insurer also tendered surveillance in support of its position, to which the claimant sought to exclude on the basis of bad faith. Adjudicator Avvy Go determined that the surveillance was in contravention of Rule 9.2 and was not served 10 days prior to the hearing. Moreover, a case conference Order stipulated timelines that the insurer was in contravention of without any explanation. Accordingly, the materials were excluded. Additionally, the insurer was ordered to pay costs on the motion to exclude. However, on the substantive merits of the claim, Adjudicator Go determined that the claimant had not tendered compelling evidence to demonstrate that recovery within the MIG was unavailable; as a result, none of the treatment plans were found payable.
This is a reconsideration decision concerning procedural issues with respect to the submission of supplementary written submissions. Following an oral hearing, the parties were invited to submit supplementary written submissions. Due to a clerical error at the LAT’s office, Adjudicator Shapiro ordered that the insurer file its submissions prior to the deadline that was ordered for the claimant’s submissions. Both parties requested reconsideration of Adjudicator Shapiro’s preliminary order on the length and deadlines for filing supplementary submissions. The claimant requested that only his filed supplementary written submissions be put before the adjudicator. The insurer requested a reconsideration on the timing, content, length and sequencing of the written submissions. The insurer raised arguments with respect to the legislative scheme governing the LAT and complained about claimant’s counsel behaviour. Associate Chair Batty denied the claimant’s application for reconsideration and granted the insurer’s relief, in part. Associate Chair Bhatty held that the fact that the insurer was ordered to submit its supplementary submissions before the claimant’s submissions were due violated the rules of procedural justice. To cure this error, Associate Chair Batty ordered that the parties file new written submissions with the claimant’s submissions due first.
The insurer sought an order for a number of documents (which the claimant undertook to provide during the Case Conference) and the particulars of the special award claim. Adjudicator Ferguson granted the insurer’s motion, and ordered the claimant to produce the requested documentation within seven days, and to provide the particulars of the special award claim.
The claimant sought to exclude addendum reports completed by the insurer’s IE assessors, which were served three days after the ordered due date. Adjudicator Paluch held that the late addendum reports would be admissible at the hearing. He reasoned that the insurer had kept that claimant apprised of its intention to obtain the addendum reports, and kept the claimant well-informed of the status of the reports. He also wrote that it would not be in the interest of fairness to exclude addendum reports that were two days late – the best available evidence should be available to inform the Tribunal’s decision.
The insurer sought to have the application dismissed on the basis of the claimant’s failure to attend the hearing. Adjudicator Maedel held that the claimant had abandoned his application, and had failed to substantiate his claims. The matter was dismissed.
The applicant sought medical benefits for physiotherapy services. The respondent brought a motion to strike the applicant’s reply. The applicant filed a response to the motion to strike a day after the deadline. Adjudicator Goela held that despite being late, she would consider the applicant’s response as it did not prejudice the respondent. Adjudicator Goela further held that the applicant’s reply was struck because the applicant used the reply to introduce new information and arguments that should have been addressed in her initial submissions. The adjudicator also held that the applicant was also not entitled to the medical benefits sought as the treatment plans were related to injuries from a previous accident.
The insurer brought a motion seeking the production of items listed in a case conference Order, as well as additional items. The claimant indicated that best efforts were made to fulfill the production requests of the case conference Order and was able to produce some of the items. Adjudicator Ian Maedel denied the request of the insurer to seek additional items citing further productions close to a hearing date would only complicate matters and add delay. However, any items not produced but subsequently tendered at the hearing would be excluded pursuant to Rule 9.4.
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