Licence Appeal Tribunal
Date: 2017-10-10 Tribunal File Number: 17-004213/AABS Case Name: 17-004213 v TD Insurance Meloche Monnex
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:
K.D.
Applicant
and
TD Insurance Meloche Monnex
Respondent
MOTION DECISION
Appearances1:
Counsel for the applicant: Alexei Antonov Counsel for the respondent: Geoffrey Yu
Order made by: Cezary Paluch, Adjudicator Date of Decision: October 10, 2017
OVERVIEW:
1A case conference took place on September 6, 2017, and an order was issued on September 22, 2017 scheduling an in-person hearing for January 10 and 11, 2018 (the "Order").
2The issues in dispute for the hearing as listed in the Order are: i) entitlement to non-earner benefits; ii) payment for a physiotherapy services in the amount of $4,435.83; iii) interest; and iv) award.
3On September 28, 2017, the applicant brought a motion to vary the Order and add another issue to the Application being payment for chronic pain treatment in the amount of $9,171.54.
SUBMISSIONS
4The applicant submits that the Tribunal should grant this request for the sake of economy since a separate Application would then be required for this additional issue and it would save the Tribunal and counsel time.
5The respondent is opposed to the request stating that the applicant is requires to submit a separate Application to the Tribunal and then have those files heard together or one after another. They state that this issue was addressed at the case conference.
RESULT:
6The applicant's motion is granted. These are the reasons for my decision.
ANALYSIS AND REASONS:
7Rule 20.5 of the Licence Appeal Tribunal Rules of Practice and Procedure allows the Tribunal to combine claims where two or more AABS Claims have been made involving the same parties or the same accident. In this case, at this time, the applicant has not filed another Application but will likely be required to do so if this motion is denied.
8In my view, this will involve further time and unnecessary costs and expenses for both the applicant and the respondent who will then have to reply to a new but related Application. Another case conference will also have to be scheduled by the Tribunal just to deal with this one narrow issue. Unnecessary case conferences frustrate the Tribunal's ability to provide fair, timely and expeditious dispute resolution services to all parties. Potentially, the hearing dates of January 10 and 11, 2018 may also be jeopardized if a new case conference related to a new Application cannot be held in a timely fashion.
9The Tribunal has an obligation to ensure a fair, just, expeditious and cost efficient determination of every case on its merits.
10Here the request is to add one additional issue being a disputed treatment plan that can be efficiently dealt with at the scheduled in-person hearing as it will involve the same parties and the same accident. I also note that the case conference was held very recently and the date of denial of the subject treatment plan was September 15, 2017. Soon thereafter, on September 28, 2017, the applicant filed her motion. I therefore find that the applicant submitted her motion in a timely manner.
11The respondent has not shown in his letter dated September 27, 2017 how they be will be prejudiced if the issue is added at this time. They state that it is their understanding that a separate Application is required and then those two files can be heard together or one after the other and that the issue was addressed at the case conference. My review of the Case Conference Report dated September 22, 2017 is that it does not address this in any way although it may have been raised by the parties.
12Section 25.0.1 of the Statutory Powers and Procedure Act ("SPPA") grants the Tribunal the power to control its process and make orders with respect to the procedures and practices that apply to any particular proceedings.
13Therefore, in the interest of fairness, efficiency and to ensure a timely resolution on the merits of the applicant's case, it is ordered that the issue of whether the applicant is entitled to receive payment in the amount of $9,171.54 for a chronic pain treatment plan dated August 28, 2017, submitted by Dr. Howard Jacobs of Downsview Healthcare Inc. and denied by the respondent on September 15, 2017, is to be added as an issue in dispute to the hearing scheduled for January 10 and 11, 2018. The Order is varied accordingly.
14All remaining terms of the Order remain in full force and effect.
Released: October 10, 2017
Cezary Paluch, Adjudicator