Dr. Mohamed Khaled

The applicant challenged LAT and HRTO decisions arising from the denial of statutory accident benefits after the insurer relied on an IME report without producing the physician for cross-examination.

The court held that the LAT lacked jurisdiction to issue a second reconsideration decision more than a year later and while appeal and judicial review proceedings were already perfected, as that step was not taken within a reasonable time and offended functus officio and finality principles.

The court further accepted that the earlier LAT decisions could not stand because reliance on the challenged expert report without cross-examination breached procedural fairness.

The LAT and HRTO decisions were quashed and remitted, with costs of $15,000 awarded against the insurer on the LAT matter, but no costs awarded to the applicant on the HRTO matter.

During a trial for damages and statutory accident benefits arising from a motor vehicle accident, the self-represented plaintiff sought to introduce a medical report for the truth of its contents without calling the authoring doctor to testify.

The defendants objected on the basis of hearsay and failure to comply with the Evidence Act and Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court ruled the report inadmissible, holding that without the opportunity for cross-examination, the hearsay content could not be admitted.

The court also provided guidance on best practices for self-represented litigants regarding expert evidence.