Tribunal File Number: 17-002907/AABS
Case Name: 17-002907 v Aviva Insurance Canada
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:
P. L.
Applicant
and
Aviva Insurance Canada
Respondent
ORDER ON A MOTION
ADJUDICATOR: Catherine Bickley
APPEARANCES:
For the Respondent: Stanislav Bordov, counsel
HEARD: October 25, 2017 by teleconference
OVERVIEW
1This order grants the respondent’s motion to admit two s.44 assessment reports as well as supplementary written submissions.
BACKGROUND
2At a July 5, 2017 case conference, a written hearing was set for October 31, 2017. The case conference order set timelines for the parties’ written submissions.
3The respondent made its written submissions as scheduled on October 10, 2017. Three days later it received two s.44 assessment reports dated October 10, 2017. That same day, it sent the reports to the applicant.
4Both reports flow from a s.44 assessment conducted by Dr. Finklestein on September 20, 2017. One report was authored by Dr. Finklestein. The second, a psychological paper review by Dr. Moshiri, was based in part on Dr. Finklestein’s report.
THE MOTION HEARING
5No-one representing the applicant attended the motion hearing. The Tribunal’s case management officer attempted unsuccessfully to contact the applicant’s counsel. From my review of the file, I am satisfied that the applicant received notice of the motion. That notice, dated October 19th, told the applicant that he could file responding materials and submissions on the motion by October 24th. He did not do so.
6After waiting 15 minutes (half the time scheduled for the motion hearing), I asked the respondent for its submissions. It submitted that the motion should be granted. If the applicant had not cancelled the original assessment appointment (August 16, 2017), the respondent would have had the reports in time to include them with its response. Further, the applicant addressed the two reports in his reply, thus appearing to accept that the reports formed part of the written hearing materials.
7The motion to admit the reports and supplementary submissions is granted. The delay in obtaining the reports appears due, at least in part, to the applicant’s cancellation of the earlier assessment date. There is no prejudice to the applicant as he has had an opportunity to review and respond to the reports.
8The motion also sought to extend time lines. There is no need to do so as the applicant has addressed the reports in his reply. The written hearing will proceed as originally scheduled on October 31, 2017.
ORDER
9The October 10, 2017 reports of Dr. Finklestein and Dr. Moshiri and the respondent’s supplementary submissions dated October 17, 2017 are admitted.
Released: October 27, 2017
___________________________
Catherine Bickley, Adjudicator