Tribunal File Number: 17-002468/AABS
Case Name: 17-002468 v Northbridge Insurance Company
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. K. H.
Applicant
and
Northbridge Insurance Company
Respondent
ORDER
Adjudicator: Lori Marzinotto
Counsel for the Applicant: Satwant Merwar
Counsel for the Insurance Company: Linda Kiley
Respondent: Anne Kerr, AB Technical Specialist
OVERVIEW
1The applicant was injured in an automobile accident on October 6, 2014 and sought benefits pursuant to the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule – Effective September 1, 2010 (the “Schedule”).
2The applicant submitted an application to the Licence Appeal Tribunal – Automobile Accident Benefit Service (the “Tribunal”) on April 20, 2017.
3The Tribunal held a case conference in this matter on June 19, 2017.
4On consent, a three day, in-person hearing was scheduled for November 6, 7, 8, 2017 in Toronto, Ontario. A resumption of the case conference was also scheduled for July 28, 2017.
5The case conference report and order identified the issues in dispute as follows:
a) Is the applicant entitled to receive a non-earner benefit (“NEB”) in the amount of $185.00 per week from July 22, 2015 to date and on-going? Application for this benefit was denied by the respondent on July 22, 2015.
b) Is the applicant entitled to receive an attendant care benefit (“ACB”) in the amount of $189.20 per month from July 23, 2015 to date and ongoing? Application for this benefit was denied by the respondent on July 23, 2015.
6In addition, the case conference report and order incorrectly included the following additional issue:
a) Has the applicant sustained a catastrophic impairment as defined by the Schedule?
7The respondent requested an amendment to the case conference report and order as there was no discussion and no consent regarding the issue of catastrophic impairment (“CAT”). The amended case conference report and order, released on June 29, 2017, were amended to exclude the issue of CAT.
8A resumed case conference took place on July 28, 20171.
9At the resumed case conference, the parties consented to revised production of document dates.
10In addition, at the resumed case conference, the applicant submits that the respondent was advised that an Application for Determination of Catastrophic Impairment (OCF-19) was being completed.
APPLICANT’S MOTION
11On September 7, 2017, the applicant brought a motion requesting a teleconference motion for the purpose of adjourning the hearing scheduled for November 6,7,8, 2017 because the applicant had served the completed OCF-19.
12The respondent does not consent to an adjournment of the November hearing dates.
RESULT
13I order the following:
i) That the hearing dates of November 6, 7, 8, 2017 be adjourned to a date to be set at a resumed case conference to be scheduled no later than 120 days from the date of this order;
ii) The parties are to agree to and provide three dates to the Tribunal for the resumed case conference;
iii) At the next case conference, the parties are to provide an update to the Tribunal on the status of the CAT reports;
iv) I order that the applicant’s responding reports be served within 45 days of receipt of the respondent’s IE reports on the CAT issue;
v) A new hearing date will be scheduled at the resumed case conference; and,
vi) My order does not vary any of the orders with respect to the timelines for production of documents on the NEB and ACB issues in the amended Order released on June 29, 2017.
ANALYSIS
14The motion proceeded by way of teleconference. The parties made oral submissions and, both the applicant and respondent provided written correspondence dated September 13, 2017 which I considered in making my decision. These are the reasons for my decision.
15The Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (the “Rules”) do not provide much guidance on the factors I need to consider when deciding whether to grant or refuse an adjournment of a hearing. Section 21 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act (“SPPA”)2 states that a hearing may be adjourned where it is shown to the satisfaction of the tribunal that the adjournment is required to permit an adequate hearing to be held.
16I agree with the reasoning in the decision in matter 17-001054, N.Y v. TD Insurance Meloche Monnex at paragraph 36, where the adjudicator interpreted [s.21](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/stat/rso-1990-c-s22/latest/rso-1990-c-s22.html#sec21_smooth