I went to Montreal today for a hearing and attended a beheading. The insurance case  is now over. I lost the case not on medical evidence, or a lack of it, but on the post office.

The hearing today was a simple formality. My presence was not even required. I travelled to Montreal to identify the location of the hearings, visit the actual courtroom, become familiar with the setting. I had no idea what would take place, or that anything was required of me. There was no understanding of the events about to unfold.

The hearing started simply enough. I was asked to explain why I delayed my response. I stated there had been no delay. The claim decision arrived as a regular letter toward the end of February. It was dated January 30th 2015 and indicated on its face it had been delivered via Priority Courier. But it had come to me as regular mail.

On receipt I became extremely upset. I was so upset that I called an organization that supports brain injury victims. I spoke with the head of this organization, and was in near tears. When I explained I was a resident of Quebec he expressed an immediate understanding of my situation. A great many citizens of Quebec are upset over their treatment when it comes to brain injury.

My call took place around 11 o’clock. That same day I sent him a follow up email in which I thanked him for speaking with me and apologized for my overwrought state.

This email served as proof of the date on which the claim decision arrived. According to the decision letter, I had 60 days from the date of letter receipt to respond. This created a deadline of April 24th. I faxed my response on the 23rd.

The insurance company lawyer presented documentation that showed a document sent by courier mail had been returned to the insurer as unclaimed. Not understanding courtroom etiquette, I jumped in and declared this evidence corroborated my statement – a document was sent, and returned, without being delivered to me.

The presiding officer gently explained it was not my turn to speak. The insurance company lawyer then declared there had been two delivery notifications and the law dictated that I was therefore liable for the document as if it had been received. I was stunned to learn this and did not know what to say.

I have no memory of any delivery notifications. That does not mean they did not occur. But I have no knowledge of having seen either, or both of them.

I was unable to argue anything. I cannot argue something did not happen if I have no knowledge of the event. I have no memory of what took place in January. Even if I went back through my notes I doubt I would have recorded the arrival of a Canada Post notification. I certainly would not have recorded the non-arrival of a notification. I was totally flummoxed.

At the end of the session, I gathered my things and walked toward the door. I wanted to thank the presiding offer as she had been very warm and gracious. I wanted to thank the insurance company lawyer as he had taken me aside and spoken to me briefly before the session. My sense is that he was trying to be genuinely helpful. I wanted to thank him for that assistance. After he made his argument, he turned to me and said by way of explanation “That is the law.”

The law had just chopped my head off. I was heading for the door and trying to gauge the propriety of saying thank you to the man who triggered the guillotine and saying goodbye to the woman who had just watched my head roll into the basket. I was unsure of the propriety of a man without his head making an attempt to speak. I remained silent.

Neither the presiding officer, nor the insurance company lawyer, looked in my direction as I departed. I don’t think they cared to view a man heading toward the door carrying his severed head in his hands.