Terry Hunter

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that denied her claims for a neurological assessment and a multidisciplinary chronic pain assessment.

The applicant argued that the Tribunal made errors of fact and breached procedural fairness.

The Vice-Chair dismissed the request, finding that the applicant was attempting to re-litigate the case and disagreeing with the weight assigned to the evidence, rather than establishing any material errors of fact or law that would have changed the outcome.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied several treatment plans on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to establish her injuries fell outside the MIG.

However, the Tribunal held that the respondent's denial notices for most of the treatment plans were defective under s. 38(8) of the Schedule because they failed to provide sufficient medical reasons.

As a result, the defective notices did not trigger the two-year limitation period, and the respondent was required to fund the disputed treatment plans once incurred, pursuant to s. 38(11).

Claims for an award and interest were dismissed.

The applicant was injured in a 2017 motor vehicle accident and sought various statutory accident benefits, including attendant care, psychological treatments, and medical assessments.

The respondent denied the benefits and brought a preliminary motion arguing the applicant was statute-barred for failing to attend insurer's examinations (IEs).

The Tribunal granted the respondent's motion, finding the applicant failed to attend the scheduled IEs.

In the alternative, the Tribunal found the applicant failed to establish entitlement to any of the substantive benefits, as she did not prove the attendant care expenses were incurred and failed to show the proposed treatments and assessments were reasonable and necessary given her pre-existing conditions and post-accident level of functioning.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a motion order which found he did not provide a reasonable explanation for filing his application for statutory accident benefits outside the prescribed time limits.

The applicant argued the Tribunal made errors of fact regarding his knowledge of the SABS, his belief that his injuries would resolve, and the adequacy of the insurer's notice of consequences for late filing.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding no significant legal or evidentiary mistakes that would warrant reconsideration.

The applicant and respondent both requested reconsideration of a preliminary issue decision that stayed the applicant's application for non-earner benefits pending her attendance at insurer's examinations.

The Tribunal dismissed both requests, finding that Rule 18 of the Common Rules of Practice and Procedure only permits reconsideration of decisions that finally dispose of an appeal.

Because the underlying decision was an interlocutory order, the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to reconsider it.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a preliminary issue decision that found the applicant had refused to attend Insurer's Examinations but declined to grant a remedy due to non-compliant notices.

The Tribunal dismissed the request for reconsideration, holding that Rule 18.1 limits reconsiderations to decisions that finally dispose of an appeal.

As the underlying decision was an interlocutory order adjourning the hearing, it did not satisfy the requirements for reconsideration.

The appellant appealed a proposal to suspend its registration under the Consumer Reporting Act.

The parties agreed to a consent order without a hearing.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal ordered the appellant to comply with several conditions regarding its website disclosures, information furnishing practices, and dispute resolution processes.

In exchange, the notice of proposal to suspend the registration was withdrawn, allowing the appellant's registration to continue unencumbered.

The applicant sought reconsideration of a decision denying their motion for the costs of an accounting report obtained to calculate an award.

The applicant argued the Tribunal erred in finding it lacked jurisdiction to order the payment of disbursements under Rule 19 of the Common Rules of Practice and Procedure.

The Vice Chair dismissed the reconsideration request, confirming that following the repeal of section 282(11) of the Insurance Act, the Tribunal has no statutory authority to award disbursements as part of a costs order.

The Vice Chair also found no error in failing to clarify the original decision and concluded the original decision was not based on false evidence.

The added party builder brought a motion to have the upcoming appeal hearing proceed in person and to limit the scope of the hearing.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal denied the request for an in-person hearing due to the ongoing pandemic, ordering that the hearing proceed by videoconference.

The Tribunal granted the request to limit the scope of the hearing to the issues of the precast front porch steps and rainwater penetration, as other issues had been previously adjudicated.

The applicant sought an order for the production of unredacted adjusting log notes and to add a claim for punitive damages to the hearing.

The applicant argued that the respondent's co-mingling of tort and accident benefits files resulted in an unfair litigation advantage and waived privilege.

The Tribunal denied the request for unredacted notes, finding no unfair advantage as the respondent had replaced both counsel and the adjuster and restricted access to the tort file.

The Tribunal also denied the request to add a claim for punitive damages, confirming it lacks jurisdiction to award punitive damages or damages based on bad faith.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision awarding $1,000 in costs to the respondent.

The costs were awarded after the applicant withdrew their application on the eve of a multi-day hearing for the second time.

The applicant argued that the Vice Chair's prior comments describing the applicant's conduct as 'cavalier' created a reasonable apprehension of bias, and that the decision relied on false evidence.

The Tribunal dismissed the reconsideration request, finding that an informed person would view the applicant's conduct as unreasonable and subject to censure, and that no false or misleading evidence was relied upon.

The applicant sought reconsideration of a motion order that denied enforcement of a partial settlement on the basis that the Licence Appeal Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to apply contract law principles.

The Vice Chair granted the reconsideration, acknowledging an error of law.

Relying on recent appellate jurisprudence, the Vice Chair held that the Tribunal has exclusive jurisdiction to determine whether a binding settlement was reached regarding statutory accident benefits.

The parties were granted 30 days to make further submissions on the new case law.

The Registrar proposed to revoke the appellant's registration as a travel agent under the Travel Industry Act, 2002, alleging non-compliance and past conduct issues.

The appellant appealed the proposal to the Licence Appeal Tribunal.

The parties reached a settlement and requested a consent order.

The Tribunal ordered that the appellant be bound by the Minutes of Settlement, which allowed the appellant to maintain its registration subject to strict conditions, including notifying the Registrar before resuming travel agent activities and complying with record-keeping requirements.

The respondent insurer sought reconsideration of a decision awarding the applicant $1,000 in costs.

The costs were originally awarded because the respondent conceded the applicant's entitlement to an income replacement benefit at the start of the hearing, which the adjudicator found to be unreasonable and vexatious conduct that caused unnecessary preparation expense.

The respondent argued the adjudicator made errors of law and fact by failing to follow prior decisions, misunderstanding its position, and lacking justification for the quantum.

The Vice-Chair denied the reconsideration request, finding no significant error of law or fact, and held that the adjudicator properly exercised discretion in assessing the parties' conduct and awarding costs.

The respondent insurer requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that found the applicant entitled to pre- and post-104 week income replacement benefits (IRBs) due to psychological injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident.

The insurer argued the Tribunal erred in law and fact by misapplying the IRB tests and misinterpreting the medical evidence, particularly given the applicant's non-disclosure of marital issues to assessors.

The Vice Chair denied the reconsideration request, finding that the Tribunal correctly applied the legal tests and that its conclusions regarding the applicant's complete inability to work were well-supported by the psychological evidence.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a case conference order requiring him to produce bank records and denying his request for the respondent's adjuster's log notes.

The respondent argued the request was late and failed to specify criteria, but the Tribunal found it had discretion to hear the request.

The Tribunal dismissed the reconsideration, finding no significant legal or evidentiary mistake in the original order regarding the bank records, and agreeing that the applicant failed to establish a nexus between the log notes and the substantive issues.

The applicant brought a motion for the production of raw test data of Dr. Warren Schmidt directly to their counsel.

The respondent consented to the motion.

The Tribunal ordered the production of the raw test data directly to the applicant's counsel, subject to conditions that counsel hold the data in confidence, not disclose it to the applicant, and destroy it at the completion of the proceeding.

The applicant sought reconsideration of an adjudicator's order requiring him to produce his spouse's 2017 income tax return and notice of assessment.

The respondent requested the documents to determine if the spouse, who provided attendant care services, sustained an economic loss.

The Vice Chair dismissed the request for reconsideration, finding that the adjudicator did not breach procedural fairness, the documents were relevant to the issues in dispute, and the privacy arguments under PIPEDA were not raised in the initial submissions.

The applicant brought a motion to remove an issue regarding the repayment of $7,910.00 in non-earner benefits from the hearing, arguing it should be the subject of a separate application by the respondent.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding it lacked jurisdiction to set aside a Case Conference Order on a motion, and noted the proper procedure was a request for reconsideration.

However, to ensure procedural fairness, the Tribunal ordered the respondent to provide particulars regarding the limitation period and any allegations of fraud or wilful misrepresentation.

The applicant brought a motion to vary a Case Conference Order to permit the use of affidavit evidence in a written hearing for statutory accident benefits.

The adjudicator dismissed the motion, finding that a request to vary an explicit order made by a case conference adjudicator must be brought by way of a reconsideration under Rule 18 of the Tribunal's Common Rules of Practice and Procedure.

The adjudicator also noted that introducing affidavit evidence into a written hearing format could distort the process by opening the door to cross-examinations or competing affidavits.