Licence Appeal Tribunal
Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number: 20-012739/AABS
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.
Parties
Between:
Irum Ayaz
Applicant
and
BelairDirect Insurance Company
Respondent
DECISION AND ORDER
VICE-CHAIR: Chloe Lester
APPEARANCES:
For the Applicant: Irum Ayaz, Applicant Ashu Ismail, Counsel
For the Respondent: Julie Dool, Representative Michael Huclack, Counsel
Interpreter: Saadat Hayat, Urdu Interpreter
Court Reporter: Bruce Porter
HEARD: by Videoconference: December 19 and 20, 2022
REASONS FOR DECISION AND ORDER
BACKGROUND
1The applicant was involved in an automobile accident on July 1, 2018, and sought benefits pursuant to the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule – Effective September 1, 2010 (including amendments effective June 1, 2016) (“Schedule”).
2The applicant applied for a non-earner benefit, 22 treatment plans for various modalities and assessments, and attendant care benefits.
3The applicant was denied the benefits by the respondent and submitted an application to the Licence Appeal Tribunal – Automobile Accident Benefits Service (“Tribunal”) on October 29, 2020.
4The hearing was scheduled to proceed to a 10-day videoconference hearing beginning on December 19, 2022.
5The hearing began on December 19, 2022, and I presided over it. During the first two days of the hearing, I decided on numerous motions. My decision on the motions was rendered orally with written reasons to follow. Upon receipt of my decision to deny the parties’ request to adjourn the hearing. The applicant withdrew her application for dispute resolution. This decision provides my reasons for the motions.
Motion to Exclude Documents
6The applicant argued the additional supplemental brief disclosed on December 8, 2022, should be excluded from the hearing. She argues that the order from Adjudicator Makhamra ordered that all documents that were going to be relied upon for the hearing were to be exchanged by October 31, 2022.
7The respondent argues that it disclosed the reports as soon as they were available.
8I order that the supplementary brief be excluded from the hearing. The supplemental brief contained catastrophic assessment reports. The reports were disclosed to the applicant only 2 weeks before the hearing. I find the reports are not relevant because the issue of catastrophic determination is not being argued at this hearing. Even though the reports would contain information regarding the function of the applicant, I find there is sufficient medical evidence that the respondent may rely on to defend its position. I find these reports are prejudicial to the applicant as she would not be able to properly prepare or defend the position on the reports and properly question the witnesses.
Adding Catastrophic Determination to the Hearing
9The applicant argues that it was her understanding that the issue of catastrophic impairment determination was added to the hearing. The applicant does acknowledge that Adjudicator Makhamra’s order does not explicitly add it but argues that the submissions of the parties and the order clearly demonstrate the intent was to add the issue.