[12] When an applicant makes an application to the Tribunal, it utilises a great amount of resources and should not be made lightly. Parties should not apply to the Tribunal until their file is ready to proceed. Not only did the applicant abuse the Tribunal’s process, she undermined the accident benefits process by not attending the rescheduled IE. While this did not factor into my determination of costs, the applicant should have known that non-attendance at an IE would bar her from making an application to the Tribunal as this was the same reason she withdrew her application at the first CC. Knowing that, the applicant should not have made her second application. Therefore, the second application was frivolous, vexatious and unreasonable and the respondent is entitled to costs.
[13] Since I have found that the respondent is entitled to costs, I must now determine the quantum. The respondent requested $5,000 and provided a bill of costs. As I mentioned above, the purpose of Rule 19.1 is to deter particular conduct in a proceeding. Given an award of costs is not meant to be an assessment of the actual costs a party has had to incur as a result of defending a claim, an award of $5,000 would be inappropriate in this circumstance.
[14] In bringing the second application which I find to be frivolous, vexatious, and unreasonable, the applicant’s behaviour interfered with the Tribunal’s ability to carry out a fair and efficient process and the respondent suffered prejudice as a result. As a consequence of the applicant’s conduct, the respondent only had to incur extra costs in defending the second application. Given that the issue in dispute in the second application was included in the first application, the respondent had already incurred the bulk of its costs defending the issue in the first application. The greatest expenditure the Respondent incurred in defending the second application would be the time spent attending and preparing for the second Case Conference. This should be nominal given that the Respondent had already defended the same issue.
[15] Taking into account the circumstances including the conduct of the applicant, the prejudice suffered by the respondent and the impact on the Tribunal process, I find that $500 is adequate. Therefore, I award the respondent $500 for the frivolous, vexatious and unreasonable conduct of the applicant.