An Ontario court docket has rejected the privacy considerations of an auto accidents advantages claimant who refused to attend a psychological examination required by his insurer, discovering that the claimant’s privacy considerations amounted to an abuse of process.
Ali Baradaran Bagherian was injured in a motorcar accident in July 2014. He commenced an software for revenue alternative advantages to the Ontario Licence Enchantment Tribunal (LAT) in July 2017.
Twice, in 2018 and 2019, the LAT refused to grant a movement by Aviva Canada (Bagherian’s auto insurer) to dismiss the declare. Every time, the insurer sought dismissal on the grounds that Bagherian wouldn’t attend an impartial medical examination (IME) with a psychologist, which was required by the insurer.
Every time, the LAT rejected the insurer’s movement for dismissal and ordered Bagherian to cooperate with the IME process.
For instance, in July 2019, LAT vice chair Terry Hunter rejected Aviva’s movement to dismiss as a result of [Bagherian] agreed to attend an IME with a psychologist. Nonetheless, the IME was not accomplished “as a result of of points of consent raised by [Bagherian] and his threats to complain to the psychologist’s regulatory physique,” the Ontario Superior Courtroom discovered.
Aviva’s second movement to dismiss the declare was rejected by Hunter on June 1, 2020. Hunter ordered an IME with a psychologist inside 90 days and “ordered that [Bagherian] not dispute the phrases of the [privacy] consent type, not threaten motion in opposition to the psychologist with a regulator till after the evaluation was accomplished, and that he cooperate. [Hunter] famous that this was the appellant’s remaining likelihood to cooperate,” the Superior Courtroom resolution discovered.
Lastly, after consideration of audiotapes Bagherian submitted of his third encounter with a psychologist, the LAT upheld Aviva’s movement to dismiss the declare on account of abuse of process.
Bagherian appealed LAT’s ruling to the Ontario Superior Courtroom, which discovered no error. Bagherian argued the LAT didn’t give enough weight to his privacy considerations, however the court docket held the LAT was legally justified in dismissing the declare.
“Rule 3.4(a) of the tribunal’s guidelines offers that the tribunal can dismiss an software and not using a listening to if the continuing is frivolous, vexatious or commenced in dangerous religion,” the Ontario Superior Courtroom discovered. “The tribunal acknowledged within the reconsideration resolution that whereas [Bagherian] had not commenced the continuing in dangerous religion, he had repeatedly demonstrated a sample of dangerous religion conduct as a result of of his repeated failure to undergo psychologists’ examinations….
“The file earlier than the tribunal amply supported the conclusion that [Bagherian’s] conduct was an abuse of its process. He was given a number of alternatives to finish an [IME] with a psychologist and every time, he raised points with the consent type, threatened to report the psychologist to the Faculty, and threatened civil motion. The tribunal concluded that his conduct was irritating the [IME] process.”
As for Bagherian’s privacy considerations, they didn’t trump the LAT’s authority to finish the declare, the Superior Courtroom dominated.
“Whereas [Bagherian] asserts that he has rights beneath numerous statutes regulating privacy that led him to query the proposed consent types, [LAT] vice chair Hunter had the authority to require that [Bagherian] cooperate by signing a consent type for the IE.”
Characteristic picture courtesy of iStock.com/tommaso79