The insurer sought direction on the release of a preliminary issue hearing decision as to whether the release would impact a looming hearing. Vice Chair Hunter determined that since the release of the preliminary decision would unlikely be before the hearing, the looming hearing was cancelled and set for rescheduling.
This claim was dismissed by Adjudicator Hines after the claimant failed to make any written submissions or provide any evidence supporting his IRB claim.
The claimant had requested an adjournment of a hearing scheduled for July 2017 to be moved to November 2017 to allow the parties to attend a global mediation. The Case Management Officer (CMO) had denied the request. Following the denial, the claimant’s counsel also told the LAT that their expert witness would be on vacation over the dates the hearing had been scheduled. On reconsideration, EC Lamoureux granted the request for adjournment, but on the basis that the claimant’s expert would be unavailable. She considered this to be new evidence or information that, if previously known, would have affected the Tribunal’s decision.
The insurer sought a stay of LAT proceedings while it sought judicial review of two LAT orders denying the insurer’s request for a hearing adjournment. Justice Kiteley denied the insurer’s motion. She ruled that the insurer’s request was premature, and that the LAT proceeding should reach its conclusion before the court system became involved. She reasoned that upon receipt of the LAT’s order following the determination of the legal issue, the insurer had a right of appeal on a question of law, which included questions of fairness and natural justice.
The claimant failed to attend two LAT Cases Conferences, and the insurer sought to have the matter dismissed. Adjudicator Purdy dismissed the matter as abandoned.
The insurer sought an adjournment of the LAT hearing due to receipt of productions from the claimant late in the process. Adjudicator Hunter granted the adjournment, and also ordered the claimant to produce a record of her passport, which was relevant to her travel activities. No costs were awarded in relation to the late productions.
The claim for various medical benefits and MIG removal was dismissed because the claimant did not participate in the written hearing. Adjudicator Marzinotto held that the insurer did not need to bring a formal notice for a dismissal because the parties had agreed to a written hearing to be held March 14, 2017. Rather, the matter was dismissed because the claimant had presented no evidence in support of his claim.
The claimant sought entitlement to an in-home assessment and assistive devices. After weighing the evidence, Adjudicator Pay found the treatment plans reasonable and necessary. Although the insurer raised objections to the Reply submissions of the claimant, Adjudicator Pay stated: “Because these submissions of the applicant were not relevant to the determination of the dispute, I did not consider them. The issues in dispute focused on whether or not the two treatment plans were reasonable and necessary. In determining these issues, I considered the medical evidence. I did not consider telephone records or emails by the assessors. I also disregarded the allegation regarding production issues and the accusation of errors, misinterpretation and misleading facts. As a result, I do not need to consider the request to strike these portions of the applicant’s submissions, or to provide an opportunity to respond.”
The claimant had already previously adjourned two case conferences due to a death in the family and medical reasons. A preliminary issue hearing was scheduled; however, it was subsequently withdrawn by the insurer and the matter was set to proceed to a hearing. The claimant sought to adjourn a written hearing, so she could undergo an assessment. The insurer contested the adjournment. Vice Chair Trojek was critical of the claimant’s actions. However, the funeral and medical calamities the claimant experienced were “exceptional and uncontemplated circumstances.” To deny an adjournment would unduly prejudice the claimant.
Adjudicator Pay was asked to exclude a report by Dr. Ogilvie-Harris that was served two days before the hearing date. Adjudicator Pay allowed the submission of this late report as it was relevant and likely necessary to the determination of the issues in dispute. However, she extended the timelines for the submission of the insurer’s reply materials by an additional 30 days.
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