The claimant brought a motion seeking to add additional issues in dispute. The insurer resisted the motion. Adjudicator Cezary Paluch relied on Rule 20.5 and noted that “the Tribunal has an obligation to ensure a fair, just, expeditious and cost efficient determination of every case on its merits.” The issues were added.
The claimant sought entitlement to accident benefits. The LAT case conference adjudicator ordered a hybrid hearing with evidence to be entered via writing. After the claimant filed submissions, the insurer responded with submissions containing addendum IE reports as evidence. The claimant made a motion objecting to the admissibility of the new addendum reports and was partially successful. However, the case conference adjudicator did not grant the claimant access to the adjuster log notes, nor did the addendum reports get excluded. Rather, the authors of the reports were to be made available for cross-examination and a 90 day resumption of case conference was afforded to allow the claimant to commission rebuttal reports if desired. The claimant sought reconsideration of the case conference order seeking the addendum reports to be entirely inadmissible. Executive Chair Linda Lamoureux held the case conference adjudicator did not error – the addendum reports were considered relevant and therefore admissible. The denied request for log notes was also reaffirmed. The reconsideration appeal was dismissed.
The claimant sought entitlement to accident benefits. The LAT case conference adjudicator ordered a hybrid hearing with evidence to be entered via writing. After the claimant filed submissions, the insurer responded with submissions containing addendum IE reports as evidence. The claimant made a motion objecting to the admissibility of the new addendum reports and was partially successful. However, the case conference adjudicator did not grant the claimant access to the adjuster log notes, nor did the addendum reports get excluded. Rather, the authors of the reports were to be made available for cross-examination and a 90 day resumption of case conference was afforded to allow the claimant to commission rebuttal reports if desired. The claimant sought reconsideration of the case conference order seeking the addendum reports to be entirely inadmissible. Executive Chair Linda Lamoureux held the case conference adjudicator did not error – the addendum reports were considered relevant and therefore admissible. The denied request for log notes was also reaffirmed. The reconsideration appeal was dismissed.
The claimant did not participate during a case conference. The case conference was therefore adjourned and rescheduled to allow for all parties to participate. The adjourning case conference report noted that the claimant was put on notice that failing to attend the rescheduled case conference would result in the dismissal of the claims before the LAT. Neither the claimant nor his representative participated at the reconvened case conference. The insurer brought a motion to have the matter dismissed. Adjudicator Blaine Baker, under Rule 3.4, construed the non-attendance by the claimant as an abandonment of the claims. Accordingly, since the insurer had brought a motion to dismiss that was compliant with Rule 15.2, the claimant’s case was dismissed.
The claimant brought a motion seeking an adjournment of the scheduled hearing and cited the submitted of an OCF-19 as reason for the added time. Adjudicator Lori Marzinotto reviewed section 21 of the Statutory Powers Procedures Act and noted the central consideration when contemplating an adjournment is whether a full and fair hearing is possible. An adjournment was granted and three alternative days were requested in accordance with Rule 16.1.
The claimant failed to participate in the Case Conference, and failed to make written submissions on why his claim should not be dismissed. Adjudicator Maedel dismissed the claim after being satisfied that the claimant had been notified of the insurer’s motion and had failed to adhere to the Case Conference order.
The claimant sought entitlement to various accident benefits. The parties reached a settlement during the hearing of the case. Adjudicator Bickley therefore closed the claim.
The insurer brought a motion to compel the claimant to produce tax returns. Adjudicator Robert Watt ordered the claimant to produce the requested productions as the parties appeared to agree that the order was necessary.
A catastrophically injured minor sought entitlement to the insurer’s log notes as part of the preliminary issues, arguing that the insurer’s denials were insufficient to explain why claimed benefits were denied. The insurer argued that the log notes were not relevant and that the claimant was engaged in a “fishing expedition.” Adjudicator White ordered the insurer to produce the log notes. She reasoned that disclosure obligations had to be proportional to the claim being made, and that the serious nature of the claimant’s injuries and status as a minor made the request for log notes proportionally fair.
The claimant sought reconsideration of the Tribunal’s decision to deny medical benefits above MIG limits and IRBs. The Tribunal had denied the claimant’s entitlement to these benefits based on its review of the available medical evidence. The claimant made multiple arguments: first, that the Tribunal did not consider evidence indicating she suffered from a pre-existing condition; second, that the Tribunal considered improper surveillance footage; and, lastly, that the Tribunal erred in refusing her requests for an oral hearing and for the hearing to be recorded. Executive Chair Lamoureux denied the reconsideration request. She held that the Tribunal had properly reviewed the entire medical record when it determined that the claimant fell within the MIG. She noted that claimant’s counsel had provided the Tribunal with little guidance regarding the evidentiary record, and had failed in its duty to best present the claimant’s position. She further held that the Tribunal had properly addressed the claimant’s objections to the surveillance footage, and any new concerns raised in the reconsideration request were not permissible. Moreover, Executive Chair Lamoureux held that the claimant’s rights to procedural fairness were not affected by the Tribunal’s decisions to deny her requests for an oral hearing and for the hearing to be recorded.
150 York Street, Suite 1800
Toronto, Ontario M5H 3S5
416.507.1850
© 2020 Thomas Gold Pettingill LLP Disclaimer | Privacy Policy | Statement of Principles
Subscribe to get TGP’s case summaries straight to your inbox
Subscribe to get TGP’s case summaries straight to your inbox
150 York Street, Suite 1800
Toronto, Ontario M5H 3S5
416.507.1850
© 2020 Thomas Gold Pettingill LLP