Safety, Licensing Appeals and Standards Tribunals Ontario Licence Appeal Tribunal Automobile Accident Benefits Service Mailing Address: 77 Wellesley St. W., Box 250, Toronto ON M7A 1N3 In-Person Service: 20 Dundas St. W., Suite 530, Toronto ON M5G 2C2 Tel.: 416-314-4260 1-800-255-2214 TTY: 416-916-0548 1-844-403-5906 Fax: 416-325-1060 1-844-618-2566 Website: www.slasto.gov.on.ca/en/AABS
Tribunaux de la sécurité, des appels en matière de permis et des normes Ontario Tribunal d'appel en matière de permis Service d'aide relative aux indemnités d'accident automobile Adresse postale : 77, rue Wellesley Ouest, Boîte no 250, Toronto ON M7A 1N3 Adresse municipale : 20, rue Dundas Ouest, Bureau 530, Toronto ON M5G 2C2 Tél. : 416 314-4260 1 800 255-2214 ATS : 416 916-0548 1 844 403-5906 Téléc. : 416 325-1060 1 844 618-2566 Site Web : www.slasto.gov.on.ca/fr/AABS
RECONSIDERATION DECISION
Before: Linda P. Lamoureux, Executive Chair
File: 16-003927/AABS
Case Name: 16-003927 v. Intact Insurance Company
Written Submissions By:
For the Applicant: Tina Radimisis
For the Respondent: Alison Ritchie
Overview
This matter involves an application for dispute resolution under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule – Effective after September 1, 20101 (the "Schedule"). That application is scheduled for hearing on July 10, 2017. However, on March 21, 2017, the applicant requested that the hearing be adjourned, on consent, in light of an upcoming mediation. That request was denied.
The applicant asks me to reconsider the Tribunal's decision. For the reasons that follow, I grant his request.
The Facts
The applicant, P.P. was injured in an automobile accident on September 29, 2012. As a result, he sought various benefits under the Schedule from his insurer, Intact Insurance Company ("Intact"). This, in turn, resulted in a number of disputes between P.P. and Intact. In order to resolve these disputes, P.P. commenced an application with the Tribunal on November 16, 2016.
P.P. also commenced litigation. Following the accident, P.P. commenced a civil claim in the Superior Court of Justice against, among others, Intact. In his Amended Statement of Claim, dated November 19, 2013, P.P. alleges that Intact has negligently refused to provide him various benefits under the Schedule to which he claims entitlement.
As it does with all applications, the Tribunal held a case conference in this matter to allow the parties to discuss, among other things, settlement. Those discussions took place on February 9 and 17, 2017. The parties were unable to resolve their disputes. Consequently, the Tribunal ordered that the matter proceed to a hybrid hearing on July 10 and 11, 2017.
However, on March 21, 2017, P.P. submitted a Request for an Adjournment. The Request, which indicated that it was being made with Intact's consent, explained that the parties have a "global mediation" scheduled for August 11, 2017. Its point was clear: both parties might resolve their differences, including their Schedule-related disputes, at the mediation. For that reason, and in order to "avoid duplication of work" as P.P.'s counsel explained, the parties asked to adjourn the matter until November 27, 28, or 29, 2017.
That request was denied. By letter dated March 28, 2017, the Case Management Officer responsible for the file wrote to the parties as follows:
This confirms receipt of your (Appellant) correspondence dated March 21, 2017 requesting an adjournment and advising the Licence Appeal Tribunal that the parties in this matter have consented to an adjournment.
I am directed to inform you that the Tribunal has considered the request and determined that the reasons provided are insufficient to grant the adjournment. The request is denied.
The following day, P.P.'s counsel wrote to the Tribunal. Among other things, he wrote to "appeal [sic] the Tribunal to reconsider our request for an adjournment as we think it will be a total waste of Tribunal [sic] and counsels' time and resources as there is [sic] possibility of settlement at the mediation."
More recently, on May 12, 2017, P.P.'s counsel informed the Tribunal that its expert witness will now be on vacation from July 1-17, 2017 and, thus, will be unable to attend the hearing. Again, she asked that the matter be reconsidered, saying that continuing with the scheduled hearing will "be a total waste of [sic] Tribunal and counsels' time and resources as there is a high possibility of settlement at the global mediation which is now confirmed for September 29, 2017."
Discussion and Reasons
The question for me on a request for reconsideration is whether the facts give rise to any of the circumstances enumerated in Rule 18.2. In this case, they do.
P.P.'s expert witness is no longer available for the scheduled hearing. I am satisfied that this development is new evidence or information that was previously unavailable and which, if known previously, would have affected the Tribunal's decision. I recognize that Rule 18.2(d) of the Tribunal's Rules of Practice and Procedure references only new "evidence." However, Rule 3.1 also requires that the Rules be "liberally interpreted and applied." In these circumstances, I am confident that the fundamental purposes underlying Rules 3.1 and 18.2(d) would be served by their application to these facts.
I am also compelled to comment on the manner in which this Request for Adjournment was handled. In particular, the parties were given no explanation why, despite their consent and the potential savings to the Tribunal's resources, their request was denied. Moreover, the Vice Chair who made this determination did not write directly to the parties but, instead, directed the application's Case Management Officer to relay the message that the request was denied. All told, the parties do not know who rendered the decision, the basis for the decision, or the competing considerations that informed the decision. This is unacceptable. While I do not go so far as to suggest that in this situation reasons were legally required, I will underscore that the interests of transparency and accountability should have offered the parties more.
Conclusion
- I grant the request for reconsideration and, accordingly, order that this application's hearing be adjourned to November 28 and 29, 2017.
Linda P. Lamoureux
Executive Chair
Safety, Licensing Appeals and Standards Tribunals Ontario
Released: May 23, 2017