LICENCE APPEAL TRIBUNAL
Safety, Licensing Appeals and Standards Tribunals Ontario
Date: November 29, 2016 Tribunal File Number: 16-000682/AABS
In the matter of an Application pursuant to subsection 280(2) of the Insurance Act, RSO 1990, c I.8., in relation to statutory accident benefits.
Between:
M. M. Applicant
and
Northbridge Personal Insurance Corporation Respondent
PRELIMINARY ISSUE DECISION
Adjudicator: Lan An Written Submissions By: For the Applicant: Carlos Ortiz, Senior Paralegal For the Respondent: Shikha Sharma, Counsel Hearing in Writing on: October 14, 2016
REASONS FOR DECISION AND ORDER
OVERVIEW
The applicant, M. M., was injured in a motor vehicle accident on August 28, 2015. He applied for and received benefits under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule – Effective after September 1, 2010 (the “Schedule”).
Following the motor vehicle accident, the applicant applied for and received an income replacement benefit that was paid until January 28, 2016.
The respondent, Northbridge Personal Insurance Corporation, denied the applicant’s claim for income replacement benefit (IRB) as of January 14, 2016.
In written submissions at the hearing, the respondent raised, as a preliminary issue, whether four sets of documents submitted by the applicant should be excluded from the hearing. The respondent contends that the Tribunal made an order at the case conference that the parties were not permitted to submit new documentation following the case conference. The respondent submits tabs 1, 2, 10 and 11 of the applicant’s Submissions Brief breach the Tribunal’s order.
PRELIMINARY ISSUE TO BE DECIDED
- The preliminary issue to be decided is:
a. Is the applicant in compliance with the Tribunal’s order and the disclosure rules as set out under Rule 9 and Rule 10 of the Licence Appeal Tribunal Rules of Practice and Procedure with respect to the documents at tabs 1, 2, 10 and 11 of his Submissions Brief?
ANALYSIS AND RESULT
Having reviewed the Tribunal’s earlier order in detail, I can find nothing in it that limits the documents to be used at the hearing to documents that were disclosed at or before the case conference. That leaves a breach of the Rules as the only ground upon which the respondent can succeed.
Rule 9 provides that parties shall disclose the documents they intend to rely on at the hearing as ordered by the Tribunal. Rule 10 sets out special considerations for experts’ reports. Only one of the documents in issue is an expert report, the document at tab 10. I will deal with that below. The other three documents, those at tabs 1, 2 and 11 were served on the respondent within the filing deadline as set out in the Tribunal’s order. They are relevant and admissible.
Tab 10 is a report by Dr. J. Wong dated September 6, 2016. Rule 10 provides that experts’ reports must be served by the party bringing the application at least 30 days before the hearing. The applicant did not serve the document within that timeframe.
The substance of the respondent’s objection to the admission of the Wong report is that it has been denied the opportunity to review it with its experts and respond.
I note that Rule 3.1 states that the Tribunal’s Rules will be liberally interpreted and applied, and the Rules may be varied on the Tribunal’s own initiative to “facilitate a fair, open and accessible process” to allow effective participation by all parties. As Rule 10 is a Tribunal rule, I can vary it.
I find that the Wong report is relevant, necessary, and admissible, and will assist the Tribunal and the parties to come to a resolution. Any prejudice to the respondent can be cured by this Order, giving them 30 days to review the Wong report, and make submissions and submit any material it deems necessary.
The Wong report is admitted as evidence.
Conclusion
- In light of the foregoing, I order that the respondent have 30 days from the date of this Order to submit responding material to address Dr. Wong’s report.
Released: November 29, 2016
___________________
Lan An, Adjudicator