Category: LAT Rules

J.J. v. Aviva Insurance Canada (16-001031)

Post author By tgp-admin
Post date March 9, 2017
No Comments on J.J. v. Aviva Insurance Canada (16-001031)

The claimant was involved in two accidents and sustained a heart attack months after the second accident. A treatment plan for assistive devices was denied by the insurer with the assistance of a GP IE report. The insurer objected to the inclusion of documents not disclosed 10 days before the service and filing of written submissions, pursuant to LAT Rule 9. Adjudicator Theoharis ruled that since the insurer’s response submissions afforded it 10 days, the materials were properly disclosed. On the merits, Adjudicator Theoharis determined that the treatment plan for assistive devices was reasonable and necessary and that the treatment undertaken by the claimant had to be cognizant of the heart condition suffered afterwards.

J.Y. v. Aviva Insurance (16-001993)

Post author By tgp-admin
Post date March 3, 2017
No Comments on J.Y. v. Aviva Insurance (16-001993)

The insurer sought an adjournment of an oral hearing because two of its witnesses would be out of the country; the claimant’s counsel consented to the adjournment. Nevertheless, Adjudicator Trojek rejected the request for an adjournment, reasoning that the request was not timely. The insurer made the request only 23 days before the hearing and more than 104 days after the case conference. No explanation was provided as to why the insurer only learned of the IE assessors absence so close to the hearing date.

T.D. v. The Dominion of Canada General Insurance Company (16-002640)

Post author By tgp-admin
Post date February 13, 2017
No Comments on T.D. v. The Dominion of Canada General Insurance Company (16-002640)

The claimant sought to combine the hearing of his case with the hearing of another applicant’s claim, as both claims arose from the same accident. The insurer opposed combining the files. Adjudicator Trojek denied the request to combine the hearings, reasoning that the claims dealt with two different claims by two difference people. Each claim was unique, and there was no value in terms of fairness, efficacy, or cost in having the matters heard together.

L.Y.C. v. The Co-operators General Insurance Company (16-000881)

Post author By tgp-admin
Post date February 13, 2017
No Comments on L.Y.C. v. The Co-operators General Insurance Company (16-000881)

The claimant did not attend the hearing. Accordingly, the claims were dismissed.

M.Y.Y. v. Dominion of Canada General Insurance Company (16-002636)

Post author By tgp-admin
Post date February 13, 2017
No Comments on M.Y.Y. v. Dominion of Canada General Insurance Company (16-002636)

The accident involved two people, each with claims. The insurer requested that the matter be combined. The claimants did not consent. The two hearings shared only one common witness. Vice Chair Trojek denied the request for the combination of hearings. Under Rule 20.5 Vice Chair Trojek did not find any value in terms of “fairness, efficacy, or cost effectiveness” in having the matters combined. Privacy rights were also cited.

Applicant v. Unifund Assurance Company (16-000879)

Post author By tgp-admin
Post date January 24, 2017
No Comments on Applicant v. Unifund Assurance Company (16-000879)

The claimant sought an order for NEBs, and medical benefits. As a preliminary issue, the insurer sought the exclusion of documents not produced in accordance with the Case Conference Order. Adjudicator Truong held that the Tribunal could set deadlines that were more stringent than those in the LAT Rules. The documents were excluded and the claims for NEBs and medical benefits were dismissed.

C.S.Z. v. Allstate Insurance Company of Canada (16-000270)

Post author By tgp-admin
Post date January 20, 2017
No Comments on C.S.Z. v. Allstate Insurance Company of Canada (16-000270)

The claimant sought IRBs in the amount of $400 per week. Adjudicator Marzinotto allowed the admission of surveillance evidence. She also allowed the admission of a report without an Acknowledgement of Expert’s Duty. In terms of the benefits in dispute, the adjudicator denied the claim for IRBs, stating that the claimant had not proved his entitlement and had not provided information that would allow the Tribunal to calculate the weekly quantum.

M.B. v. Dominion of Canada General Insurance (16-001825)

Post author By tgp-admin
Post date January 19, 2017
No Comments on M.B. v. Dominion of Canada General Insurance (16-001825)

The claimant’s application was dismissed due to his failure to participate in the Case Conference.

T.S. v. Allstate Insurance Company of Canada (16-001916)

Post author By tgp-admin
Post date December 28, 2016
No Comments on T.S. v. Allstate Insurance Company of Canada (16-001916)

The claimant sought entitlement to a number of medical benefits. Additionally, the claimant sought entitlement to medical benefits generally, in the sum of $10,000,000.00. The insurer resisted the claims and asserted the matter was dealt with at FSCO. The insurer raised a preliminary issue to that effect, to which the claimant was not prepared for given confusing correspondence with the LAT. As a result, the claimant sought an adjournment. Adjudicator Chloe Lester granted the adjournment.

A.B. v. Aviva Insurance Company of Canada (16-000342)

Post author By tgp-admin
Post date December 23, 2016
No Comments on A.B. v. Aviva Insurance Company of Canada (16-000342)

The claimant sought entitlement to NEBs and transportation costs. The insurer relied upon surveillance as part of its defence. Adjudicator Richards concluded that the claimant did not meet the complete inability test, and was not entitled to transportation costs. The adjudicator allowed the surveillance to be admitted despite non-compliance with the timelines in the LAT Rules.

Contact Us

Contact Us

Contact Us