Linda Lamoureux

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that found his injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and upheld the insurer's denial of two treatment plans.

Prior to the reconsideration decision, the insurer revised its position, approved full payment for both treatment plans, and removed the applicant from the MIG.

The only remaining issue was whether the applicant was entitled to interest on the outstanding benefits.

The Executive Chair granted the reconsideration in part, ordering the insurer to pay interest on the overdue payments in accordance with the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident while in the course of his employment.

He commenced a tort action and claimed statutory accident benefits.

The WSIAT determined that his tort action was barred by the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act, 1997.

The insurer denied accident benefits on the basis that the applicant was entitled to workers' compensation benefits.

The Tribunal initially held that the WSIAT decision had no effect on the accident benefits claim.

On reconsideration, the Executive Chair cancelled the Tribunal's decision and dismissed the application, finding that the exception in s. 61(2) of the Schedule only applies to actions an injured worker is legally entitled to commence.

The respondent insurer requested a reconsideration of two cost orders issued by the Tribunal, arguing that the parties had settled their respective disputes before the decisions were issued.

The Tribunal found that the applicants' counsel failed to notify the Tribunal of the settlement and instead simply filed Notices of Withdrawal.

Concluding that it would be unfair for the applicants to benefit from the cost orders given the prior settlement, the Executive Chair granted the reconsideration and cancelled the cost orders.

The applicant withdrew their application before the Licence Appeal Tribunal.

Prior to the withdrawal, the respondent had requested that the application be dismissed with costs because the applicant failed to provide submissions by the ordered deadline.

The Tribunal administratively closed the file without addressing the costs request, stating it no longer had jurisdiction.

The respondent requested a reconsideration.

The Executive Chair granted the reconsideration, finding that the Tribunal's failure to address the pending costs request before closing the file was a breach of procedural fairness.

The matter was remitted to an adjudicator to determine the costs issue.