2002 Annual Report
Previous
| Table of Contents | Next
Annual Report 2002
Prepared for:
The Joint Committee of the Hepatitis C 86-90 Trust Fund
Prepared by:
Reva Devins
Associate Chair,
Ontario Roster of Arbitrators and Referees
Duties and Responsibilities of Arbitrators and Referees
- Under the terms of the Court approved settlement, Arbitrators and Referees
are responsible for determining all appeals brought by claimants seeking review
of the decision of the Administrator. An appeal may proceed by Arbitration
or Reference, and may be conducted by convening an in person hearing where
witnesses give oral testimony, or by a review of written material. Arbitrators
and Referees are to conduct their review using the simplest, least expensive
and most expeditious procedure.
- Upon conclusion of the appeal, the Arbitrator or Referee must release their
decision within thirty days of completion of an oral hearing, or within thirty
days following receipt of final written submissions. Reasons for Decision
are released in writing to the individual claimant and to Fund Counsel representing
the Administrator. In all decisions, the Arbitrator or Referee must state
the facts and conclusion without identifying the claimant; decisions are then
posted on the Website.
Roster of Arbitrator/Referees
- There are currently 16 Court appointed Arbitrator/Referees: one in each
of Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, and Quebec, two in Nova Scotia, four in
British Columbia, and 7* in Ontario, including a French speaking Arbitrator/Referee
who conducts all French language appeals outside of Quebec and British Columbia.
(*Two other Arbitrator/Referees were appointed by the Superior Court in
Ontario, however, as of March 31, 2002 they were no longer able to hear
appeals. One Arbitrator/Referee was appointed a Justice of the Superior
Court, and another passed away on March 27, 2002.)
Appeal Activity
- The Arbitrators and Referees have received 116 appeals, and rendered their
decision in 43 cases. Of the decided appeals there have been 17 Arbitrations,
and 26 References, 18 have been concluded after an oral hearing and 25 were
completed on the basis of a review of documents and written submissions.
- In the vast majority of appeals yet to be determined, a hearing date has
been set. In most instances, where hearings have not yet been scheduled, the
Arbitrator/Referee is awaiting confirmation from the claimant regarding whether
they require an in person hearing, and if so when they would be available
to attend. Finally, a number of hearings have been adjourned to permit the
claimant to retain counsel or to seek out additional evidence.
- The following overview provides a summary of all appeal activity:
Appeals:
Hearings not yet |
Or |
Received
Rescinded |
Withdrawn
Rendered |
Decisions
Completed* |
British Columbia |
18 |
3 |
9 |
6 |
Alberta |
6 |
- |
4 |
2 |
Saskatchewan |
6 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
Manitoba |
5 |
2 |
1 |
2 |
Ontario |
47 |
5 |
16 |
26 |
Quebec |
21 |
- |
6 |
15 |
New Brunswick |
5 |
- |
1 |
4 |
Nova Scotia |
7 |
- |
3 |
4 |
PEI |
- |
- |
- |
- |
Newfoundland |
1 |
- |
1 |
- |
Totals: |
116 |
12 |
43 |
61 |
*This column includes cases where the decision has not yet been released,
where the hearing has yet to be convened, or where the hearing has been
commenced but adjourned to allow for the introduction of additional evidence
or submissions.
Financial Activity to March 31, 2002
- The fees and expenses incurred by the Arbitrators and Referees are summarized
below:
|
British Columbia |
Quebec |
Ontario
(including all
remaining provinces) |
Fees: |
$45,822.50 |
$23,855.00 |
$89,427.50 |
Disbursements: |
$2,132.13 |
$165.01 |
$15, 231.14 |
Taxes: |
$5,483.96 |
$3,609.00 |
$7,990.13 |
TOTALS |
$53,438.59 |
$27,629.01 |
$112,648.77 |
Proposed Budget
- The number, and complexity of appeals initiated, and pursued, by claimants
determines the fiscal needs of Appeal administration. Consequently, absent
a reliable predictor of incoming Appeals, the proposed budget for Arbitrators
and Referees should be based on expenses, fees, and related expenses incurred
in the previous year. We would therefore recommend that the 2002-2003 Budget
be set at an amount equal to that actually paid in 2001-2002. Any additional
amounts, if required, would be subject to Court approval.
Top
|