The claimant appealed the Tribunal’s decision that she did not suffer a catastrophic impairment due to three Class 4 marked impairments. The claimant argued that the Tribunal acted unfairly in limiting the time for examination and cross-examination of witnesses, and by allowing the insurer’s expert to comment on the claimant’s expert’s report but not vice versa. The Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the Tribunal acted fairly. The adjudicator was entitled to control the process, and the time limits on examination and cross-examination were applied fairly and equally to all witnesses, and the parties were able to call all witnesses they wished to testify. The Court did not find unfairness in the adjudicator allowing the insurer’s expert to comment on the claimant’s expert’s report while disallowing the reverse because the insurer’s expert had a copy of the claimant’s expert’s report when generating his own report, whereas the claimant’s expert did not have the insurer’s expert’s report when generating his report. Further, the claimant could have requested an addendum report from her own expert to respond to the insurer’s expert, but chose not to.
