An Ontario insurer chased costs after a claimant abandoned his own catastrophic impairment case - and came away empty-handed.

The applicant was hurt in a car accident on December 16, 2021, and turned to Ontario's Licence Appeal Tribunal for a catastrophic impairment designation, a $3,616 psychiatric assessment fee, and a special award for delayed payments, all from Belair Insurance Company Inc. It wasn't his first try. An earlier application on the same claim had already come and gone - withdrawn just before that hearing was set to start.

This time, things went further. A three-day video hearing opened on August 11, 2026, and two evidence disputes got sorted before a single witness was called. The tribunal let in some late clinical records from the applicant's family doctor, finding them useful for understanding his recovery. Then it drew a harder line on his expert evidence: his psychiatric and orthopaedic assessors had been summoned to testify and simply didn't show up. Pointing to a Divisional Court ruling on the same problem, the panel excluded both reports, reasoning that experts unavailable for questioning shouldn't have their opinions count.

That call changed everything. The applicant gave his opening statement, then withdrew the entire application - both on the record and in writing - before calling a single witness.

Belair wasn't ready to let it go. The insurer went after costs, arguing the applicant had never confirmed his experts would show up, had been slow handing over documents, and had walked away from an earlier round of the same dispute just as its hearing was about to start. It pointed to rulings holding that a party can't simply walk out once a hearing is underway.

The panel sided with Belair on one point: it still had the authority to rule on costs, even after the applicant's withdrawal. Vice-Chair Brian Norris and Member Kimberly Gruetzman found that once a costs request is on the table, it keeps the case alive under the tribunal's rules, which treat a case as ongoing until every issue is wrapped up, costs included. But having the authority to decide wasn't the same as having a winning argument. Costs only follow where a party acted "unreasonably, frivolously, vexatiously or in bad faith," and the panel didn't see that here.

The applicant's own conduct undercut Belair's case. He filed his document brief on time, argued the early objections, delivered his opening statement, and was ready to call his first witness - right up until his expert evidence disappeared. Once that evidence was gone, pushing ahead would have left his case badly exposed, and the panel didn't think walking away at that point was unreasonable. As for Belair's complaints about late documents and missed deadlines, those had already been dealt with through the earlier rulings on evidence.

Costs denied. File closed.

In the end, Belair got half of what it wanted: the tribunal agreed it could rule on costs after a withdrawal, just not in Belair's favour. Showing up prepared, then leaving for a real reason, isn't the same as acting in bad faith.