Heather Trojek

The applicant sought an adjournment of a written hearing regarding statutory accident benefits because she sustained multiple fractures and required surgery, preventing her from attending a scheduled medical assessment.

The respondent opposed the adjournment, arguing the applicant had sufficient time to obtain medical reports before filing the application and that further delay contravened the Tribunal's mandate.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment, finding that the applicant's exceptional and uncontemplated medical circumstances outweighed the potential prejudice to the respondent caused by the delay.

The respondent requested an adjournment of the scheduled in-person hearing because one of its expert witnesses would be out of the country.

The applicant consented to the adjournment.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal denied the request, finding it was not submitted in a timely manner and the respondent failed to provide evidence of reasonable efforts to ensure the witness's availability.

The Tribunal noted that granting a lengthy adjournment without a complete evidentiary record would impair its ability to ensure a fair and expeditious hearing.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits, including non-earner benefits, medical benefits for chiropractic services, and compensation for damaged eyeglasses.

The applicant failed to attend the scheduled in-person hearing despite receiving proper notice.

As the applicant bore the burden of proof and presented no evidence, the Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the claims in their entirety.

The applicant filed a motion to combine their statutory accident benefits hearing with another applicant's hearing arising from the same motor vehicle accident.

The respondent opposed the motion and sought costs.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding no value in terms of fairness, efficacy, or cost-effectiveness in combining the hearings, noting the lateness of the request and the numerous issues to be determined in each matter.

The Tribunal also declined to award costs to the respondent, finding the applicant's motion was not unreasonable, frivolous, vexatious, or in bad faith.

The applicant brought a motion to combine their statutory accident benefits hearing with another application arising from the same motor vehicle accident.

The respondent opposed the motion and sought costs.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding no value in combining the hearings given the numerous distinct issues, different witnesses, and the lateness of the request.

The Tribunal also declined to award costs to the respondent, finding the applicant's motion was not unreasonable, frivolous, vexatious, or in bad faith.