Date: 2017-07-12

Tribunal File Number: 16-004675/AABS

Case Name: 16-004675 v Certas Direct Insurance Company

In the matter of an Application for Dispute Resolution 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

Certas Direct Insurance Company

Respondent

DECISION ON A WRITTEN MOTION

Adjudicator: Robert Markovits

APPEARANCES:

Counsel for the Applicant Jono Schneider

Counsel for the Respondent Kayley Richardson

HEARD: Written Hearing 3: June 26, 2017

MOTION

1On June 26, 2017, the respondent filed a motion seeking an order to exclude the applicant’s reply since the reply was received after the due date of June 19, 2017. The reply was dated June 20, 2017 and not received by the respondent until June 23, 2017.

2The respondent relies on the phrase in the Notice of Written Hearing (dated May 19, 2017), “documents filed after the deadlines listed above may not be considered by the adjudicator hearing the matter.”

RESULT

3A response from the applicant is not required. Having considered the respondent’s submissions, I reject their request to exclude the reply.

BACKGROUND

4A case conference was conducted on March 8, 2017. Both parties consented to a written hearing.

5A written hearing was scheduled for June 26, 2017 to decide the following questions:

i. Did the applicant sustain injuries that fall within the Minor Injury Guideline as defined in the Schedule?

ii. Is the applicant entitled to payment for an assessment in the amount of

$2,825.00 recommended by Allied-Med Trauma Evaluations in a treatment plan dated November 23, 2015, and denied by the Respondent on January 27, 2016?

iii. Is the applicant entitled to receive a medical benefit in the amount of

$2,932.71 for psychological services, recommended by Allied-Med Trauma Evaluations in a treatment plan dated November 23, 2015, and denied by the Respondent on January 27, 2016?

iv. Is the applicant entitled to receive interest on overdue benefits?

6The adjudicator at the case conference ordered the following time table for the exchange of written submissions and evidence:

Applicant’s Submission Due: May 29, 2017

Respondent’s Submission Due: June 12, 2017

Applicant’s Reply (if any) Due: June 19, 2017

ANALYSIS

7I note that the Notice of Written Hearing states that late documents may not be considered as opposed to will not.

8While I acknowledge the importance of complying with the Tribunal’s orders, I find that in this case, there is no prejudice suffered by the respondent by the applicant’s reply being four days late. The applicant did not raise any new issues in their reply and given that the hearing was scheduled to be in writing on June 26, 2017, all of the submissions were received prior to that date. As such, I exercise my discretion and allow the reply submissions.

CONCLUSION

9For the above mentioned reasons the motion is denied.

Released: July 12, 2017

Robert Markovits,

Adjudicator