Ashu Ismail

Following the allowance of the appeal, the Court of Appeal requested submissions on costs for the motion, which had not been addressed at the hearing.

The parties reached an agreement on costs.

The court ordered the plaintiffs to pay the appellant $4,000 all-inclusive, in accordance with the parties' agreement.

The plaintiffs brought a constitutional challenge against provisions of the Insurance Act, alleging the Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) lacked adjudicative independence.

They obtained a motion judge's order under Rule 30.10 requiring the LAT to produce hundreds of internal records.

The LAT appealed.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding the motion judge erred in her application of Rule 30.10.

The records were not relevant to a material issue because adjudicative independence in a specific case does not impact the constitutional validity of the tribunal's jurisdiction under s. 96 of the Constitution Act, 1867, nor does it engage s. 7 or s. 15 of the Charter.

The Court also clarified that deliberative secrecy applies to administrative tribunals to the same extent as courts.

The appellant was injured in a motor vehicle accident caused by an intoxicated driver who had been served alcohol at a nightclub operated by the corporate respondent.

The appellant sued the nightclub, its directors, and a related corporation, alleging overservice, failure to maintain adequate insurance, and improper conduct to render the nightclub judgment-proof.

The motion judge granted summary judgment dismissing the claims against the directors and the related corporation, finding insufficient evidence to pierce the corporate veil and that the insurance claim was statute-barred, but allowed the overservice claim against the nightclub to proceed.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that while the motion judge erred in some aspects of the legal test for piercing the corporate veil, the evidentiary record fell short of establishing the complete domination and fraudulent conduct required to pierce it.

The cross-appeal regarding the overservice claim was also dismissed.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a preliminary decision which found that the 'incurred' provisions of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule do not violate the Human Rights Code.

The applicant argued that the Tribunal erred in its reliance on case law and its discrimination analysis regarding family members providing attendant care.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the applicant failed to demonstrate any error of law or fact that would have changed the outcome, and that the original discrimination analysis correctly applied substantive equality principles.

The appellants appealed an order striking most of their tort, constitutional, and human rights claims arising from accident benefits assessments, surveillance, and the administration of statutory accident benefits after a motor vehicle accident.

The Court of Appeal held that the battery, intrusion upon seclusion, abuse of process, and vicarious liability claims were properly struck, and that the challenges to ss. 55 and 19(3) of the SABS were properly treated as an abuse of process because the matters had been or could have been pursued before the LAT.

However, the court found the motion judge erred in concluding that no breach of contract had been pleaded against the insurer and in treating the SABS as outside the insurance contract.

The appeal was allowed only to permit the insured appellant to amend and properly plead breach of contract and breach of good faith claims against the insurer.

The appellant sought judicial review of decisions from the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) and the Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT).

On consent, the Divisional Court quashed the HRTO decisions and remitted the matter for further adjudication without specific directions.

The Court also quashed the LAT decisions and remitted the matter for a new hearing before a different adjudicator, with reasons to follow.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that denied her claim for outstanding attendant care benefits, and also brought a motion for the adjudicator to recuse himself due to alleged bias.

The Tribunal dismissed the recusal motion, finding no reasonable apprehension of bias or institutional bias.

However, the Tribunal granted the reconsideration request in part, finding a material breach of procedural fairness because the adjudicator had reframed the issues by failing to determine the reasonable and necessary quantum of the attendant care benefit, which had been an issue at the initial hearing.

Rehearing the issue based on the existing record, the Tribunal weighed competing occupational therapy assessments and concluded the applicant was entitled to an attendant care benefit of $1,962.55 per month on an ongoing basis.

The Tribunal initiated a review of an initial decision and a reconsideration decision under Rule 18.5 of the Licence Appeal Tribunal Rules.

The Vice-Chair found that the adjudicator in the initial hearing committed a material breach of procedural fairness by admitting the respondent's expert medical reports without requiring the expert to attend for cross-examination.

Because the adjudicator relied heavily on these reports to deny several treatment plans, the breach was material.

Both the initial and reconsideration decisions were cancelled, and the matter was sent for a rehearing.

The defendants brought a motion seeking orders for the plaintiff to undergo two medical examinations—one by an orthopedic surgeon and one by a neurologist.

The court considered whether these examinations were necessary for trial fairness or duplicative of prior assessments.

The court found that the requested examinations were not duplicative and were necessary to ensure fairness, and ordered them to proceed.

The court declined to order the plaintiff to pay a cancellation fee for a missed appointment due to her chronic pain, but awarded the defendants costs of the motion.

The appellant sought to set aside a settlement agreement for statutory accident benefits reached in 2016, arguing he lacked the capacity to enter into the contract.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application, finding the appellant failed to rebut the statutory presumption of capacity.

On appeal and judicial review, the Divisional Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, finding no errors of law in the capacity analysis and concluding the decision was reasonable.

The court also rejected arguments that the Tribunal breached procedural fairness by excluding a retrospective expert capacity report.

The appellant sought to quash a Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) decision and a reconsideration decision, alleging procedural unfairness.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal and application for judicial review, finding that the appellant was given notice of the hearing, did not request an in-person hearing or accommodation, and did not raise procedural unfairness in his reconsideration request.

The court noted that the decisions do not bar the appellant's claims for attendant care benefits or a special award relating to the timing of non-earner benefits payments.

No costs were awarded.

The decision addresses a motion by the defendants (including His Majesty the King in Right of Ontario and several OPP officers) to strike portions of the plaintiffs’ Amended Amended Statement of Claim and Economical Insurance Group’s Defence and Crossclaim, under Rules 21 and 25.11 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court strikes certain paragraphs for failing to disclose a reasonable cause of action, particularly those alleging a private duty of care in negligent investigation by police officers to victims, but allows others to stand and grants leave to amend.

The court reviews the legal principles for striking pleadings and the scope of police officers’ duty of care, ultimately finding that a tenable claim may exist based on statutory duties.

The applicant appealed and sought judicial review of Licence Appeal Tribunal decisions dismissing her claims for income replacement benefits and medical expenses, and ordering the destruction of internal tribunal documents she submitted as evidence of institutional bias.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal and application, finding no error of law in the Tribunal's determination that the insurer's examination notices complied with the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The Court also upheld the Tribunal's orders striking the applicant's reply evidence and directing the destruction and non-dissemination of internal documents, concluding that the Tribunal reasonably exercised its jurisdiction to control its process and properly applied the doctrines of solicitor-client privilege and deliberative secrecy.

The plaintiffs, Lucia Derenzis and Joshua Da Silva, brought a motion under Rule 30.10 of the Rules of Civil Procedure for production of records held by the License Appeal Tribunal (LAT) in relation to their constitutional challenge to Ontario’s no-fault auto insurance scheme.

The records included adjudicators’ notes, draft decisions, and over 400 emails.

The LAT and Tribunals Ontario opposed production, citing deliberative secrecy and solicitor-client privilege.

Justice Mandhane found the records relevant and necessary to the constitutional challenge, and ordered production except for those protected by solicitor-client privilege.

The decision addresses the limits of deliberative secrecy and the necessity of evidence for constitutional litigation.

The appellant sought to rescind a 2000 settlement agreement for statutory accident benefits, arguing the insurer failed to comply with disclosure obligations under Regulation 664 by not providing a commuted value for Attendant Care Benefits.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the rescission claim, finding the insurer was not required to provide a commuted value for benefits that were never claimed.

On appeal and judicial review, the Divisional Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, concluding it was not an error of law or unreasonable to find the settlement valid where the missing commuted value was for an unclaimed benefit and could not have reasonably affected the decision to settle.

The appellant appealed and sought judicial review of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that denied her catastrophic impairment designation and income replacement benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The appellant argued that the Vice-Chair provided insufficient reasons, relied on issues not raised in the denial letters, denied her procedural fairness, and made unreasonable findings of fact.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal and application for judicial review, finding that the Vice-Chair provided comprehensive reasons, properly applied the 'but for' test for causation, afforded procedural fairness, and made reasonable findings based on the evidence.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that found he was barred from proceeding with his accident benefits dispute because a 2016 settlement agreement was valid and not vitiated by incapacity.

The applicant argued the Tribunal erred in law and breached procedural fairness by excluding a retrospective capacity assessment, improperly weighing evidence of his emotional dysregulation, and demonstrating a reasonable apprehension of bias against his counsel's law firm.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding no errors of law or procedural fairness, and concluding that the applicant was improperly attempting to re-litigate the weighing of evidence.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a 2015 motor vehicle accident, specifically claiming attendant care benefits (ACB) for services provided by her daughter and husband.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application, finding the applicant failed to prove the services were 'incurred' under s. 3(7)(e) of the Schedule.

The evidence lacked sufficient detail regarding the daughter's hours and tasks, and failed to establish that either family member sustained an economic loss as a result of providing care.

Consequently, claims for interest and a special award were also dismissed.

The decision addresses cross-motions to remove counsel for conflict of interest in a privacy action arising from a motor vehicle accident.

The plaintiff sought to remove the defendant’s counsel, Ms. Schultz, due to her dual role as counsel for the accident benefits insurer and for the defendant in the privacy action.

The court found a conflict and ordered her removal.

The defendant’s motion to remove the plaintiff’s counsel, the Campisi firm, was dismissed as there was no real basis to believe the firm could provide material, non-privileged evidence.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including an income replacement benefit (IRB) and numerous treatment plans.

The Tribunal held that the 'complete inability' test for IRBs applies 104 weeks after the accident, not after 104 weeks of cumulative disability, and found the applicant did not meet this standard as she transitioned between similar factory jobs.

The Tribunal approved several treatment plans for chiropractic and occupational therapy services based on ongoing physical pain, as well as a later social work plan, but denied others lacking evidentiary support.

Claims for a section 10 award and costs were dismissed.