Mr. Geiger

The corporate respondent, which had no employees or assets and whose owner was bankrupt, renewed its request to adjourn the scheduled hearing.

The respondent's counsel argued that he could not obtain instructions because there was no one from the corporation to instruct him, and the insurer could only give instructions regarding settlement, not defence.

The Tribunal denied the adjournment, finding that the lack of an instructing party was not a new circumstance and adjourning the hearing would not resolve the issue.

The Tribunal also noted that the respondent had ample time to seek instructions from the insurer.

The applicant sought reconsideration of a decision dismissing his breach of settlement application as abandoned.

The alleged breach was an eight-day delay in receiving a settlement payment.

The applicant claimed he did not receive an email from the Tribunal requesting confirmation of his intent to proceed.

The Tribunal found the email was properly sent to the address provided by the applicant.

Given the minor nature of the alleged breach, which was rectified immediately upon the application being filed, the Tribunal concluded there was no reason to override the public interest in the finality of decisions and dismissed the request for reconsideration.

The applicant filed an application alleging a breach of settlement because the respondent sent the settlement funds past the agreed deadline.

The respondent explained the delay was due to a clerical error and confirmed the funds had been sent.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to confirm in writing whether he disputed receiving the funds in full and what remedy he sought.

When the applicant failed to respond to the Tribunal's direction, the application was dismissed as abandoned.