L. Y. v Aviva Insurance Company (17-008847)

The insurer sought reconsideration of the Tribunal’s decision, arguing that it had made a significant error of law or fact by referring to evidence not before it, placed the onus on the insurer, and failing to adhere to case law. On reconsideration, Adjudicator Norris held that he did not err in law in his decision. Adjudicator Norris held that he had reviewed the evidence and preferred the evidence of the claimant’s treating psychologist with respect to the reasonable cost of the proposed psychological assessment. Adjudicator Norris also held that the case law submitted by the insurer was unsupportive and therefore, did not apply.