The claimant applied to the LAT seeking entitlement to various medical and rehabilitation benefits and a special award. In addition, the claimant brought a motion seeking to exclude the insurer’s submission of surveillance and the transcript from the claimant’s EUO. The claimant submitted that the insurer conducted surveillance prior to the EUO, which demonstrated that it was preparing for litigation as opposed to adjusting her file in good faith. The claimant argued that this was a conflict of interest and the insurer’s failure to disclose the surveillance prior to the EUO was trial by ambush. She also maintained that it was a conflict of interest for the counsel that conducted the EUO to represent the insurer in the LAT dispute. In support of her position, the claimant relied on the Divisional Court’s decision in The Personal Insurance Company v. Jia, in which the court upheld the LAT’s decision that an EUO obtained in the priority dispute should not be permitted in the accident benefit hearing because it was not obtained in compliance with section 33(2) of the SABS. Adjudicator Hines found that the Divisional Court decision was distinguishable as it dealt with evidence obtained in a priority dispute, whereas in the subject case the insurer obtained the EUO as part of the accident benefit claim and in compliance with section 33(2) of the SABS . Adjudicator Hines found there was no breach of any firewall between the accident benefit, tort or priority dispute, and that it is not uncommon for an insurance company to retain the same counsel for the duration of an accident benefit claim (i.e., for a s. 33 EUO and then later in response to a LAT application). With regards to the surveillance evidence, Adjudicator Hines stated that the claimant did not direct the LAT to any case law dealing with whether there was a conflict of interest due to the timing of the insurer’s surveillance or rules for when an insurer is obligated to disclose surveillance in advance of an EUO. The claimant’s request for the exclusion of EUO and surveillance was denied. Adjudicator Hines found that the claimant was entitled to the proposed assistive devices only.
