Terry Hunter

The applicant brought a motion for a resumption of a case conference to seek further orders, including adding a claim for an award, further productions, and changing the hearing format from written to in-person.

The respondent opposed the motion, arguing that the doctrines of issue estoppel and res judicata applied because the issues were allegedly disposed of at the initial case conference.

The Tribunal found that the prior decision was not final, as a claim for an award can be added at any time, making the production requests a live issue.

The Tribunal ordered a resumption of the case conference and changed the hearing format to in-person, noting that the complex issues in dispute would not be adequately addressed in a written hearing.

The applicant's son brought a motion seeking to be appointed by the Licence Appeal Tribunal as the Administrator of the Estate of the late applicant, who died intestate, in order to continue a statutory accident benefits claim.

The Tribunal held that it lacks jurisdiction to appoint an estate administrator and declined to incorporate the Rules of Civil Procedure.

However, to prevent unfairness, the Tribunal adopted an approach similar to the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal, allowing the son to proceed with the application if he provides the names and consents of all potential beneficiaries.

The respondent requested an adjournment of a scheduled two-day in-person hearing regarding statutory accident benefits to await the production of the applicant's ODSP file and to consolidate tribunal files.

The applicant consented to the request.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment, converting the first day of the scheduled hearing into a case conference via teleconference to address the production details.

The applicant brought a motion seeking production of all documentation relating to the stoppage, acceptance, payment, and subsequent denial of attendant care, housekeeping, and home maintenance benefits, and an order that the preliminary issue hearing be conducted orally rather than in writing.

The adjudicator dismissed the motion, finding that an oral hearing was not required as the evidence was documentary and the legal arguments were best presented in writing.

The adjudicator also declined to reconsider a previous order denying the broad production request, noting that equitable remedies like estoppel and waiver are beyond the Tribunal's jurisdiction and discoverability does not apply to statutory accident benefits.

The applicant filed a stand-alone application seeking costs for a prior, closed application that had settled before the hearing.

The respondent opposed and sought its own costs, arguing the applicant's new application was frivolous and vexatious.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application, finding it lacked jurisdiction under Rule 19 to award costs for conduct in a prior proceeding.

The Tribunal also denied the respondent's request for costs, as the applicant's conduct did not meet the high threshold for bad faith given the novelty of the Tribunal's processes.

The applicant brought a motion to combine his appeal for the denial of ongoing income replacement and other benefits with the insurer's earlier appeal for the repayment of income replacement benefits based on material misrepresentation.

The insurer opposed the motion, arguing that consolidation would require adjourning an already scheduled hearing for which it had incurred costs.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding no efficiency in consolidating the files because the issues were distinct and required separate evidentiary bases.

The Tribunal also noted that consolidation would prejudice the insurer's right to an expeditious determination of its repayment applications.

The applicant filed a motion to combine his appeal for ongoing statutory accident benefits with the insurer's appeal for the repayment of income replacement benefits based on material misrepresentation.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that the issues were distinct and required separate evidentiary bases.

The Tribunal also noted that consolidating the files would prejudice the insurer by delaying its already scheduled hearing and causing the loss of expenditures incurred for that hearing.

The applicant, who was catastrophically impaired in a motor vehicle accident, lacked the mental capacity to proceed with their application for statutory accident benefits.

The applicant was impecunious and unable to afford a formal guardianship application.

The applicant brought a motion to resume the case conference.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal, noting it lacked a specific rule for appointing a litigation guardian, adopted the process used by the Social Justice Tribunals Ontario.

The Tribunal ordered the case conference to resume once the applicant provided a signed declaration from a proposed litigation guardian meeting specific criteria.

The applicant requested an extension of time to file a psychiatric report and an affidavit due to a serious decline in their mental health.

The respondent did not take a position on the request.

The Tribunal granted the motion, extending the deadline to June 15.

The respondent insurer filed a motion requesting direction on whether the pending release of a decision on a preliminary issue would impact the scheduled July 4, 2017 hearing.

The adjudicator noted that written submissions for the preliminary issue were due June 12, 2017, making it unlikely the decision would be released in time for the parties to prepare.

The July 4 hearing was cancelled and ordered to be rescheduled for August or September 2017.

The respondent brought a motion to exclude a medical report filed by the applicant after the deadline set in a case conference order.

The applicant argued the report was merely supplementary to an earlier report.

The Tribunal found that admitting the report without allowing the respondent to respond would be prejudicial.

To balance the applicant's right to present her case with the respondent's right to procedural fairness, the Tribunal granted the motion in part by adjourning the hearing to allow the respondent to have the applicant assessed and to respond to the late report.

The applicant claimed statutory accident benefits and subsequently withdrew his application after failing to meet production timelines set in a case conference order.

The respondent brought a motion for costs, arguing the applicant's conduct was unreasonable, frivolous, vexatious, or in bad faith.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that the applicant made substantial efforts to comply with the orders and that the respondent could have consented to an adjournment request instead of opposing the withdrawal.

The Tribunal held that a withdrawal alone is rarely sufficient for a costs award.

The respondent insurer brought a motion seeking production of the applicant's current passport and costs for the motion.

The applicant had travelled to Mexico for four months following the accident.

The adjudicator ordered the applicant to produce the passport, finding it relevant to assessing her travel capacity and the issue of catastrophic impairment.

The adjudicator declined to award costs to the respondent, finding no evidence that the applicant acted unreasonably in the proceeding.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits for chiropractic and physiotherapy treatments following a motor vehicle accident.

The insurer argued the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The adjudicator found that the applicant's bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome and right-sided sciatica were neurological injuries caused by the accident, taking her outside the MIG.

However, the adjudicator dismissed the claims for medical benefits, finding that the proposed musculoskeletal treatments were not reasonable and necessary for her neurological conditions.

Claims for a special award and costs were also dismissed.