Licence Appeal Tribunal
Tribunal File Number: 16-000832/AABS
Case Name: 16-000832 v Royal Sun Alliance Insurance
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:
J. M.
Applicant
and
Royal Sun Alliance Insurance
Respondent
ORDER
Order made by: Terry Hunter, Adjudicator
1On January 25, 2017, the respondent submitted a motion requesting the following:
a) An adjournment of the in-person hearing scheduled to commence on February 27, 2017. The adjournment request was due to the applicant’s late production of documents. The request was granted.
b) Costs for having to file the motion.
c) An order requiring the applicant to produce, within a period of ten days of such order, a list of twenty documents requested by the respondent in its case conference summary, as well as a copy of the applicant’s passport.
2The case conference adjudicator in an order issued February 10, 2017 referred the issues raised in the motion to a written hearing to be conducted on March 17, 2017.
3The only issues left for me to decide in this motion are the production of the applicant’s current passport and the issue of costs.
4The applicant has, since her accident on February 21, 2017, travelled to Mexico for four months because the cold weather aggravated her pain and emotional symptoms.
5The respondent submits the applicant’s ability to travel, the frequency of her travel and her pre-accident and post-accident travel are directly relevant to the question of whether she sustained a catastrophic injury.
6The applicant in her response refuses to provide a copy of her passport as it is not relevant to the issue of whether or not she has sustained a catastrophic impairment.
7The applicant submits she is prepared to provide a list of particulars about her travel to Mexico.
8After reviewing the submissions of the parties I order the following:
i) The applicant shall provide a copy of her current passport to the respondent within ten days of the receipt of this order.
ii) There shall be no order as to costs.
9I find that the applicant’s passport could be relevant to the issue of the catastrophic determination. With both physical and psychological injuries, travel capacity may be an indicator of impairment.
10In weighing the relevance against the sensitivity I find the information is not of an overly sensitive nature. This is reinforced by the applicant volunteering to provide particulars of her travel to Mexico. The applicant will also be subject to cross examination on this issue should she testify. Production of a copy of her passport would be the best and most efficient method to expedite the hearing process.
11The respondent sought costs for having to bring a motion to secure production. All production requests have been meet with the exception of the passport. It appears from the case conference onward there were diligent efforts made by the applicant to meet the respondent’s production requests.
12The respondent did not specifically point to conduct that was unreasonable but rather took the position that having to bring the motion was of itself evidence of unreasonable conduct. Rule 19.1 provides as follows:
“Where a party believes that another party in a proceeding has acted unreasonably, frivolously, vexatiously, or in bad faith, that party may make a request to the tribunal for costs.”
13Rule 19.4 further sets out the requirements for the request, which must include the reasons for the request and the particulars of the alleged conduct.
The respondent’s submissions were limited. No jurisprudence on costs was provided. I find the respondent has not proven its claim for costs.
Date of Issue: April 4, 2017
___________________________
Terry Hunter, Adjudicator