Tribunal File Number:17-005287/AABS
Case Name: 17-005287/AABS v Aviva General Insurance
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:
Applicant
Applicant
and
Aviva General Insurance
Respondent
ADJOURNMENT Decision
Decision made by: Samia Makhamra
OVERVIEW
1On February 27, 2018, the applicant's representative filed a request to adjourn the three day in-person hearing scheduled to take place on March 5, 6 and 7, 2018, at Licence Appeal Tribunal 20 Dundas Street West 5th Floor, Suite 530 Toronto, ON. The respondent's representative did not consent to the adjournment.
2For the reasons provided below, the applicant's representative's request for an adjournment of the hearing is granted.
BACKGROUND
3The applicant was injured in an automobile accident July 2, 2016, and sought benefits pursuant to the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule – Effective September 1, 2010 (“Schedule”).
4After being denied certain benefits the applicant filed an application with the Tribunal. The parties attended a case conference on October 30, 2017.
ADJOURNMENT REQUEST
5The applicant's representative's submitted a request to adjourn the hearing because two witnesses are not available, and to have the ablity to request an addendum report from an expert, in light of new medical evidence. Specifically, the witnesses are the family physician (inadequate time to arrange for attendance), and an expert witness, Dr. Andrew Shaul.
6The respondent's representative's objected to the adjournment of the hearing. It submitted that that applicant had sufficient time to arrange for reports, and that Dr. Shaul should be available according to a summons served upon him. The respondent further submitted that the delay was avoidable and the fault of the applicant.
7This also acknowledges the respondent’s most recent submission to the Tribunal raising a number of concerns with the Tribunal’s decision to grant the adjournment, and the manner in which it was notified of the adjournment. I note that this decision sets out March 5, 2018, as a date for the parties to participate in a case conference. This, in my opinion, will give the parties an opportunity to discuss their concerns related to the hearing moving forward, and any other concerns.
ANALYSIS AND REASONS
8The following are my reasons for granting the request:
- The adjournment request of the applicant is granted. It is unfortunate that the request was not brought on a timely basis and the respondent’s claim for cost thrown away will be referred to the hearing adjudicator. The tribunal is aware that in denying the adjournment the applicant would suffer the greatest prejudice. The Tribunal prefers to adjudicate claims on a complete evidentiary basis. It should be noted that, in the absence of extraordinary circumstances, a second request would likely not be granted.
ORDER
9The applicant's representative's request for an adjournment of the hearing is granted.The parties are directed to attend and participate in the case conference on the first date of the in-person hearing originally scheduled March 5, 2018. The time of the case conference is 1:00p.m. If the parties are not available, the Tribunal will reschedule the case conference to either March 6 or 7, depending on the parties’ availability.
10Except for the provisions contained in this order all previous orders made by the Tribunal remain in full force and effect.
11If the parties reach an agreement on the issues in dispute, the applicant shall immediately advise the Tribunal in writing.
Released: March 2, 2018
Samia Makhamra
Adjudicator