Chris McCormack

The moving party sought a panel review of a decision dismissing her motion for an extension of time to perfect her motion for leave to appeal from the Divisional Court.

The Divisional Court had previously dismissed her appeal of five Licence Appeal Tribunal decisions.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion, agreeing with the motion judge that despite meeting the first four factors for an extension of time, the justice of the case weighed against granting leave because the proposed appeal lacked merit and general public importance.

The appellant sought judicial review and appealed five decisions of the Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) regarding her claims for statutory accident benefits following a 2007 motor vehicle accident.

The LAT had dismissed several claims as statute-barred, refused to extend the limitation period, and dismissed the remaining claims on their merits for failure to provide required information and treatment plans.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeals and judicial review applications, finding the LAT's decisions were reasonable, contained no errors of law, and did not breach procedural fairness or exhibit bias.

The appellant, Ahmad Mohammad, appealed an order dismissing his underlying action under Rule 2.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario considered dismissing the appeal itself as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process under Rule 2.1.

Despite the appellant's assertion of psychiatric conditions affecting his understanding, the court noted his extensive history of similar proceedings, some previously terminated under Rule 2.1.

The court found no arguable basis to interfere with the motion judge's decision, which identified multiple defects in the original action, including allegations subject to absolute privilege, a rambling and incomprehensible statement of claim, requests for unavailable relief, and rhetorical questions indicative of a frivolous claim.

The appeal was deemed to exhibit the same indicia of abuse.

The plaintiff, Ahmad Mohammad, commenced an action against Mohamed Bakr.

The court, on its own initiative under Rule 2.1.02 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, considered dismissing the action as frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process.

After reviewing the plaintiff's submissions, the court dismissed the action, finding that some allegations were protected by absolute privilege, the claim was rambling and difficult to understand, much of the relief sought was unavailable in a civil action, and the pleading contained rhetorical questions, all hallmarks of a frivolous and vexatious proceeding.

The action also overlapped significantly with a previously dismissed action by the same plaintiff.

The applicant sought reconsideration of a preliminary issue decision that barred her claims for accident benefits due to the expiry of the two-year limitation period.

The Tribunal had initially ruled it lacked discretion to extend the limitation period under s. 7 of the LAT Act.

Following the Divisional Court's decision in Fratarcangeli, which clarified that the Tribunal does have such discretion, the Tribunal reconsidered its decision.

Applying the Manuel test, the Tribunal found that the applicant failed to establish a bona fide intention to appeal within the limitation period, and that the delays—ranging from six months to nearly a decade—were substantial and prejudicial to the insurer.

The Tribunal concluded that the justice of the case did not require an extension of time and dismissed the reconsideration.

The moving party sought an extension of time to file an application for judicial review of decisions made by the Licence Appeal Tribunal.

At the case conference, the moving party advised she would proceed by appeal if the respondents did not oppose an extension of time and if the judicial review application could be held in abeyance pending the outcome of her appeal and the Court of Appeal's decision in Yatar.

The respondents did not oppose the extension.

The court granted the extension of time to file the notice of appeal and ordered the judicial review application to be held in abeyance.

The moving party brought a motion for an extension of time to file an application for judicial review of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision.

The respondent did not oppose the motion.

The court noted that the proper procedure for challenging the tribunal's decisions on a question of law is by way of statutory appeal, and judicial review on questions of mixed fact and law is permitted only in exceptional circumstances.

The moving party requested more time to decide how to proceed, and the motion was adjourned to a case conference.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a preliminary issue decision that barred her application for statutory accident benefits because it was filed beyond the two-year limitation period.

The applicant argued the Tribunal acted outside its jurisdiction and made errors of law by not properly weighing evidence and misconstruing her arguments.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the applicant was attempting to re-litigate the issues and failed to establish any of the criteria required for granting a reconsideration under Rule 18.2.

The applicant sought various statutory accident benefits following a 2007 motor vehicle accident.

The insurer denied the benefits between 2008 and 2010.

The applicant applied to the Licence Appeal Tribunal in 2019 and 2020, well beyond the two-year limitation period.

The Tribunal found that the insurer's denials were clear, unequivocal, and compliant with the legal requirements to trigger the limitation period.

The Tribunal also held that it lacked jurisdiction under section 7 of the Licence Appeal Tribunal Act to extend the limitation period for a regulation like the Schedule.

The applicant was therefore barred from proceeding with her claims.

The applicant sought reconsideration of a Tribunal decision finding she did not prove entitlement to treatment beyond the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant argued the Tribunal erred in law by finding the insurer's denial notices complied with s. 38(8) and s. 38(9) of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The Adjudicator found no error regarding s. 38(9) as the issue was not raised at the hearing.

However, the Adjudicator found a significant error of law regarding s. 38(8), as the insurer failed to provide sufficient medical reasons for denying two treatment plans.

Consequently, under s. 38(11), the insurer is prohibited from taking the position that the MIG applies and must pay for the disputed treatment plans.