The claimant filed a Notice of Motion requesting the Tribunal make the following orders: 1) that the insurer could not use any surveillance of the claimant at the hearing or, in the alternative, that the investigator must attend the hearing for cross-examination; 2) that the respondent pay for a s. 25 report or, in the alternative, that the cost of the s. 25 report be added to the issues in dispute; and 3) that the claimant could rely on its expert reports without producing the experts for examination, as the cost of producing the experts was prohibitive. The insurer advised that it had not conducted surveillance of the claimant. Vice Chair Helt denied the surveillance-related order requests. Vice Chair Helt found that no treatment plan had been submitted for the proposed s. 25 report and held that the claimant had failed to establish the necessity of a s. 25 report. Vice Chair Helt further held that the claimant was not required to conduct direct examination of her witness but that it was the claimant’s responsibility to make her expert witnesses available for the purposes of cross-examination by the respondent. Vice Chair Helt held that the Tribunal does not have the authority to order a party to make arrangements for and pay the other party’s expert witness fees.
