17-001681 v. Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Fund (MVACF) Motion Decision

Dec 19, 2017

Adjudicator: Rebecca Hines

Issues:

The Applicant seeks the following

1. Costs be added to the dispute

3. Production of the MVACF file

4. Production of all correspondence between MVACF and Claimspro and the insurer assessment company, Benchmark;

5. Production of all correspondence between Benchmark and its independent assessors handling the claim

The Tribunal added the following issues:

a. Does the LAT have jurisdiction to order the production of MVACF’s file or is the MVACF exempt from submitting documentary or oral discovery pursuant to s. 71 of the Legislation Act, and s. 8 of the Proceedings Against the Crown Act?

b. Should the applicant have provided notice of this motion to Benchmark since they are requesting the production of their file?

Result:

1. Costs are added as an issue in dispute. There is nothing in the Insurance Act that speaks to deadlines in terms of when a cost award may be added to a dispute.

2. The LAT does have jurisdiction to order the production of MVACF’s file. The MVACF is to be treated as an insurer and thus they are bound to the terms of the Schedule.  Subsequently they are ordered to produce the file.

3.Benchmark does not have to produce it’s entire file and the records shall be limited to the issues in dispute. Benchmark has agreed to these terms and thus  it is not necessary to ascertain whether they out to have been provided notice of the motion. That being said, the LAT is not bound by the Rules of Civil Procedure in any event.