News Update – January 14, 2022



Procedural Fairness Missteps Render Decision Invalid

In Breaking News the Division Court ruled that the LAT failed to ensure procedural fairness in three separate determinations involving a pre-June 1 2016 CAT determination on a brain impairment.

The court made clear “the standard of review applicable to procedural fairness is absolute. A proceeding is either fair or it is not” – in concluding that the Tribunal is to rehear the evidence in Lockyear v Wawanesa.

Procedural Fairness Missing in Action – In Lockyear v Wawanesa the Applicant Lockyear appealed a Tribunal decision, upheld upon reconsideration, that he did not suffer a catastrophic impairment as a result of injuries sustained in an August 2015 accident. At issue was whether he sustained a brain impairment that resulted in a score of 9 or less on the Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS).

The Ambulance Call Report recorded three GCS scores, each with a reading of 15. However, counsel for Lockyear sought and received a supplemental Incident report in November 2015 from the paramedic first at the scene (Drew) in which he indicated that immediately upon arriving at the scene he recorded a GCS score of 8.

Ultimately, the Tribunal at first instance and upon reconsideration determined that the report indicating the lower score was not credible, choosing to rely upon the initial report that was signed off by both paramedics at the scene.

 

On appeal, the Court confirmed that the matter “turned on the consideration of the Glasgow Coma Scale score of 8 that was said to have been undertaken and determined immediately upon the arrival of the paramedics on the scene. This remained the central issue.”

The Court noted that the substance of the appeal were three procedural determinations that resulted in the proceedings lacking the fairness the law required:

(i) refusing to admit a video of the accident into evidence;
(ii) permitting evidence of Dr. Sherali Esmail outside or beyond his report; and,
(iii) refusing to allow reply evidence in response to Dr. Sherali  Esmail.

In terms of the standard of review, the Court confirmed that “Procedural fairness is attached to a foundational right, a principle of natural justice, the right to be heard.” The standard of review “applicable to procedural fairness is absolute. A proceeding is either fair or it is not”. The right to a fair hearing is to be regarded as an “independent unqualified right”. Therefore, “the denial of a right to a fair hearing must always render a decision invalid, whether or not it may appear to a reviewing court that the hearing would likely have resulted in a different decision.”

The video that was excluded from evidence showed the accident and the paramedic Drew attending to Lockyear. The Tribunal found that the video ultimately had no relevance to the issue of whether the applicant suffered a catastrophic impairment, and “would not have been probative of the “ultimate issue.”

The Court however found that this determination was “narrow and restrictive”, not providing for the required “ fair, large and liberal interpretation”. In contrast to the ruling of the Tribunal, the Court found rather that “What happened over those moments is clearly relevant. To my mind, its probative value could only properly be assessed, once viewed and commented on by those who were present or otherwise qualified, presumably by some established expertise, to do so”. The refusal to admit the video was therefore a “denial of the right of Jeffrey Lockyear to be heard and a breach of procedural fairness.” As the Court put it “if a picture is worth a thousand words, how many words is an appropriately described video worth?”

Regarding the insurer’s expert having provided evidence outside of his report, the Court noted the general policy rationale was indicated as ensuring that the opposing party is not taken by surprise. The testimony regarding what was said to have been unusual scores in the November 2015 incident report, nowhere referenced in his report, resulted in the expert having “stepped outside his own report and offered an opinion that counsel for Wawanesa should have foreseen would surprise the other side.” Noting that the issue was first raised within the appeal, the Court confirmed “I would, if I were required to, find that the evidence of Dr. Sherali Esmail offered an opinion that went beyond what was in his report and opened a new field. In so doing it was in breach of procedural fairness.”

Lastly, the Court considered the failure to allow for reply evidence in regard to the newly proffered opinion of Esmail. It was confirmed that the “right to recall reply evidence is, as a general proposition intrinsic to adversarial proceedings in Ontario.” The Court found that the Tribunal, having allowed in new evidence, “rather than attempting to meet the concern, compounded the problem leading to procedural unfairness when it refused to allow Dr. Keith Meloff to provide evidence in reply.”

In the end, “Dr. Sherali Esmail’s evidence went uncontradicted and was relied on by the Licence Appeal Tribunal in finding the initial Glasgow Coma Scale test score of 8/15 was inaccurate. It was procedurally unfair to deny Jeffrey Lockyear an equal opportunity to address and reply to this new evidence.”

Therefore, the Court ordered the matter be remitted to the Tribunal for a new hearing, conducted by a different adjudicator. Costs were payable in the sum of $7500 from Wawanesa to Lockyear.


Access inHEALTH’s research resources through Live Chat and reduce your research time!

Archive of LAT Updates

March 27, 2024: Supreme Court Takes Issue with Tribunal, Divisional Court & Court of Appeal

Limitation Period, Reconsideration, Supreme Court

March 25, 2024: Expert’s Conclusory Statement Insufficient on Pre-existing Condition

MIG

March 20, 2024: Non-Compliance by Both Parties Impacts IRB and Medical Claims

IRB

March 18, 2024: No Weight Afforded to Handwritten Illegible CNR’s

MIG

March 13, 2024: Denials Deficient and Pain Relief Validates Treatment Plans

Treatment Plans

March 11, 2024: “Radicular Irritation” & MRI Findings Not MVA Related

MIG

March 6, 2024: Tribunal Upholds Decision Excluding Improperly Secured IEs From the Evidence

Evidence, IE, Reconsideration

March 4, 2024: Concussion and Chronic Pain Diagnoses Require Expertise

MIG

February 28, 2024: Prior Health Concerns Complicate Claim for CAT

CAT

February 26, 2024: Unchallenged Virtual Chronic Pain Assessment Accepted

MIG

February 21, 2024: Consent by Parties for Adjournment Not Determinative

Adjournment, Procedure

February 14, 2024: Tribunal Does Not Accept the CAT Findings of Either Party

CAT

February 12, 2024: MIG Escape on Concussion Diagnosis Despite Resolution of Symptoms

MIG

February 7, 2024: Financial Hardship Not A Defense for Repayment Responsibility

IRB

February 5, 2024: CT Scan of Wrist Fracture Contradicts Medical Opinion

MIG

January 29, 2024: Concussion Despite No Head Injury?

MIG

January 24, 2024: One Assessment Process Produces Two Discrete Reports

CAT, Productions

January 22, 2024: Defective Notices Do Not Trigger Limitation

MIG

January 17, 2024: Election Not Required, LAT Act Invoked & Limits Exhausted?

Award, Limitation Period

January 15, 2024: Chronic Pain Diagnosis Contradicted by Self-Reports

MIG

January 10, 2024: NEB Reinstated After Six Years Generates Award

Award, NEB

January 8, 2024: Undisputed Psychological Diagnosis Prevails

MIG

January 3, 2024: Significant & Competing Price of Non-Compliance for Both Parties

Non-Compliance

December 20, 2023 (Throwback Edition): Statutory Relief Within Tribunal’s Jurisdiction

Jurisdiction

December 18, 2023: ‘Incident’ of Viewing Video Not Use and Operation

MIG

December 13, 2023 (Throwback Edition): Employed Applicant Remains Entitled to Post 104 IRB

IRB

December 11, 2023: Chronic Pain Diagnosis In Absence of Physical Exam?

MIG

December 6, 2023: Four Marked Impairments for 2010 MVA

CAT

December 4, 2023: No Adverse Inference Drawn Despite Lack of pre MVA CNRs

MIG

November 29, 2023 (THROWBACK EDITION): 18 Month Delayed Notice Reasonable, However 7 Month Delay is Not

Limitation Period

November 27, 2023: Confirmed High Bar to Escape MIG on Pre-Existing

MIG

November 22, 2023: Multiple IEs Excluded From Evidence

IE, Evidence

November 20, 2023: Radiculopathy Complaint Requires a Diagnosis

MIG

November 15, 2023: Court Applies Tomec & CAT Decision Varied

CAT, Limitation Period

November 13, 2023: Insurer Expert Conclusion Inconsistent with Findings

MIG

November 8, 2023: Maximum Award in Excess of $60K on CAT Case

CAT

November 6, 2023: Medical Evidence Overrides Legal Referrals

MIG

November 1, 2023: Eighteen Month Delayed Notice Reasonable However Seven Month Delay is Not

Limitation Period

October 30, 2023: Which MVA Exacerbated Injuries?

MIG

October 25, 2023: Application Seeking CAT Determination an Abuse of Process

CAT

October 23, 2023: Functional Disability Despite 50 Hour Work Week

MIG

October 18, 2023: Statutory Relief Renders Equitable Remedy Moot

Div Court

October 16, 2023: Injuries Not Static - MIG Determined Again

MIG

October 11, 2023: CERB is Income However Not “Gross Employment Income”

IRB

October 4, 2023: Employed Applicant Remains Entitled to Post 104 IRB

IRB

October 2, 2023: ‘IE’ Does Not Establish Causation

MIG

September 27, 2023: Post June 1 CAT Criterion 8 Satisfied

CAT

September 25, 2023: Chronic Pain Distinct from Recurring Pain

MIG

September 20, 2023: Expert Opinion Not Required for IRB Entitlement

IRB

September 18, 2023: Inconsistency Argument Not Accepted

MIG

September 13, 2023: IRB Payment Delayed Four Years – 20% Award

Award, IRB

September 11, 2023: MIG Determined Absent Applicants Written Submissions

MIG

August 30, 2023: Pain Determinative in Successful Post June 1 CAT Case

CAT

August 28, 2023: Knee Injury from MVA Caused Slip and Fall & ACL Tear?

MIG

August 23, 2023: WSIB Placement Qualifies for IRB

IRB

August 21, 2023: Absence of Applicant’s Medicals A Difference Maker

MIG

Contact Sales

416.364.6688

Contact Support

Contact Us

InHealth

11 Allstate Parkway Suite 203
Markham, Ontario
L3R 9T8

Follow Us On