Ryan O’Connor

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a decision dismissing their application for accident benefits.

The applicant argued the Tribunal breached procedural fairness by denying an oral adjournment request made after their former representative was suddenly hospitalized.

The Vice-Chair found that the adjudicator misconstrued Rule 16.2 of the Licence Appeal Tribunal Rules by focusing on what the applicant should have known rather than what they actually knew.

The denial of the adjournment resulted in the application being dismissed without evidence, constituting a material breach of procedural fairness.

The reconsideration was granted, the original decision cancelled, and a rehearing ordered before a new adjudicator.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

At the scheduled videoconference hearing, the applicant failed to appear and had not filed a document brief or witness list.

Applicant's counsel made an oral request for an adjournment, citing the sudden hospitalization of the applicant's paralegal representative.

The Tribunal denied the adjournment request under Rule 16.2, finding insufficient evidence to establish compelling circumstances or explain why a written request could not have been made prior to the hearing.

As the applicant filed no evidence and made no submissions, the application for benefits was dismissed.

The applicant sought various statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

Prior to the hearing, the applicant passed away, and no litigation guardian was formally appointed.

At the hearing, the applicant's representative requested an adjournment, arguing he lacked authority to proceed.

The Tribunal denied the oral adjournment request because it was not submitted on the proper form and the representative had six months to do so.

As the applicant presented no evidence or submissions on the substantive issues, the Tribunal found the applicant failed to meet the burden of proof and dismissed the application.

The applicant, a pedestrian who sustained catastrophic injuries in a motor vehicle accident and subsequently passed away, sought various medical and rehabilitation benefits.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the claims, finding that several treatment plans were either already paid, not proven to be reasonable and necessary, or barred because the applicant failed to attend required insurer's examinations under section 44 of the Schedule.

The respondent's request for costs was also dismissed.