Released Date: 06/26/2020
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:
R. F.
Applicant
and
Pafco Insurance
Respondent
DECISION
PANEL:
Lori Marzinotto, Vice Chair
APPEARANCES:
For the Applicant:
Eric Winkworth, Counsel
Nathan Tischler, Counsel
Julia Vilorio Peguero, Counsel
For the Respondent:
Peter Yoo, Counsel
Kendall Andjelkovic, Articling Student
HEARD:
In person: April 8, 2019
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
1[R.F] (the “applicant”) was injured in an automobile accident on August 7, 2015, (the “Accident”), and sought benefits pursuant to the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule – Effective September 1, 2010 (the “Schedule”).
2The applicant applied for certain medical benefits that were denied by the respondent. The applicant disagreed with the denials and submitted an application to the Licence Appeal Tribunal – Accident Benefits Service (the “Tribunal”).
3An in-person hearing was scheduled to proceed on April 8, 9 and 12, 2019.
4Prior to the hearing, the applicant served and filed the following motions to:
State a case for contempt to Divisional Court regarding actions taken by respondent’s counsel which the applicant alleges were condoned by the respondent (“Contempt Motion”)1;
Add two witnesses to the proceeding: Peter Yoo (respondent’s counsel) and Rhonda Morrissey (respondent’s adjuster) (the “Witness Motion”)2;
Seek productions from the respondent and a third-party production Order (“Production Motion”)3; and,
Seek an adjournment of the hearing (“Adjournment Motion”).4
5Prior to the hearing scheduled for April 8, 2019, the Tribunal advised the parties that the Witness Motion, Production Motion and Adjournment Motion would proceed on the first date of the hearing on April 8, 2019. The parties did not receive a motion date for the Contempt Motion from the Tribunal.
6On April 8, 2019, I advised the parties that I would not be dealing with the Contempt Motion at this time; however, I did provide my decisions verbally on the Witness Motion, the Production Motion as well as the Adjournment Motion and advised that more fulsome reasons would follow in writing.
1) Contempt Motion
7On March 28, 2019, the applicant served a motion asking the Tribunal to state a case for contempt to Divisional Court “regarding actions taken by the respondent and its counsel”.
8On October 22, 2018, the applicant made Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act, 20005 (“PIPEDA”) requests to Dr. Saunders, Dr. Gharsaa, Dr. Esmail, Dr. Eisen, Dr. Gallimore, Dr. Mathoo, Ms. Jessica Oh (Occupational Therapist), North York Rehabilitation Centre (the “IE Assessors”) and to the respondent.
9When the applicant received responses that she perceived as unsatisfactory or no response at all, the applicant requested that the respondent assist in obtaining certain records. There is some evidence that respondent’s counsel did try and assist.6
10In the Contempt Motion, the applicant alleges that the respondent and respondent’s counsel deliberately attempted to “obstruct the fair administration of justice by preventing the applicant from accessing her own health information and obtaining clarification from assessors…” The applicant further alleges that respondent’s counsel provided legal advice to third-party regulated health professionals.7
11Given the volume of material for this motion and the fact that my full reasons on the Witness Motion and Production Motion may affect the contempt motion, I indicated that a case conference would be scheduled after the release of my written decision at