https://www5.fsco.gov.on.ca/AD/4695
Issue:
The Insurer, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company requests an adjournment of the hearing scheduled to commence on November 17-20 and 24-27, 2015. The proposed hearing dates are August 22-26, and 24-27, 2016. The Applicants Nicole Flood and Patrick Flood oppose the adjournment….
….The Insurer submits that the proposed adjournment is unlikely to cause the Applicants significant hardship. I disagree. Counsel for the Applicants advises that the assistive devices treatment plans stem from 2011 and the income replacement benefit claim from 2010. I find that the nature of the claims being advanced—assistive devices and income replacement benefits— suggests that the Applicants may well experience hardship if they have to wait for that length of time….
….My greater concern is the failure to take the steps to have the issue of home modifications added to the agenda of issues to be arbitrated. Counsel for the Applicants submitted that the issue has been added. Unfortunately, there is nothing in either arbitration file to support this submission, and I find that it has not been added. This is because he has not taken the steps outlined in the pre-hearing report in relation to Mr. Flood at pages two and three.
As I understand it, the claim being advanced for home modifications on behalf of both Applicants is approximately $323,000. From a monetary standpoint it is easily the largest claim to be arbitrated. The evidence with respect to that claim will overlap with the claims for assistive devices and perhaps with the evidence in relation to income replacement benefits. The author of the treatment plans for home modifications and for assistive devices is the same person. If the issue is not added, she will likely be called to testify at a second hearing.
For reasons of judicial economy, I find that the home modification claim should be heard at the same time. Adding that issue will result in the quickest, least expensive and just determination of the claims. Counsel for the Insurer has advised that her client consents to the addition of this claim. Thus for reasons of judicial economy, the convenience of at least one witness, and a lack of procedural readiness, the hearing should be adjourned if the Applicants fail to take the necessary steps.