David Reposo

The respondent insurer sought reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that found the applicant was entitled to income replacement benefits during a period of suspension for non-attendance at an insurer's examination.

The applicant had attended the examination but requested his wife be present, which the examiner refused.

While the applicant sought advice from his representative, the examiner left the facility.

The adjudicator found that although the original decision lacked sufficient reasons regarding the specific events, the ultimate finding was correct.

The applicant did not refuse to submit to the examination requests, and even if he did, he had a reasonable excuse.

The request for reconsideration was denied.

The applicant sought reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that found her injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and denied her treatment plans.

The adjudicator granted the reconsideration, finding multiple breaches of procedural fairness in the original decision.

Specifically, the original adjudicator failed to address costs, made a finding on the MIG when it was not an issue in dispute, misapplied the causation test by failing to analyze new post-accident injuries, and improperly relied on a previous Financial Services Commission of Ontario decision as evidence rather than case law.

The matter was ordered to be re-heard before a different adjudicator.