3 total
Motion for further discovery based on surveillance footage dismissed as plaintiff maintained original answers were correct.
The defendants in a personal injury action brought a motion for a further examination for discovery of the plaintiff, relying on surveillance footage that allegedly showed the plaintiff working despite his discovery evidence to the contrary.
The defendants argued the plaintiff had a duty to correct his answers under Rule 31.09 or that the surveillance constituted a material change in circumstances.
The court dismissed the motion, finding that the plaintiff maintained his answers were correct and that the generation of surveillance evidence did not constitute a change in circumstances justifying further discovery.
Reconsideration granted; insurer's counsel removed for conflict of interest and EUO transcripts excluded.
The applicants requested a reconsideration of a preliminary motion decision that allowed the insurer's counsel to act in the LAT proceeding despite also acting in a related priority dispute, and admitted Examination Under Oath (EUO) transcripts from that priority dispute.
The Vice-Chair granted the reconsideration, finding the Tribunal erred in law.
The priority dispute created an adversarial relationship, and the insurer failed to maintain a firewall to protect confidential information, resulting in a disqualifying conflict of interest.
Furthermore, admitting the EUO transcripts circumvented the mandatory notice requirements under section 33 of the Schedule.
Counsel was removed and the transcripts were excluded.
Insurer awarded $5,300 in expenses after successfully defending completely unmeritorious statutory accident benefits claim.
Following the dismissal of the applicant's claim for statutory accident benefits, the insurer sought its expenses for the arbitration.
The arbitrator found that the applicant's claims were completely unmeritorious and that he was entirely unsuccessful.
Applying the criteria under the Expense Regulation, the arbitrator awarded the insurer its expenses, fixed at $5,000 plus GST, noting that the insurer had kept an unmeritorious preliminary issue alive for strategic purposes.
