Douglas Lee

The appellant appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) decision finding it lacked jurisdiction to award punitive damages for statutory accident benefits claims.

The appellant argued the LAT had jurisdiction or, alternatively, that section 280 of the Insurance Act was unconstitutional for eliminating punitive damages claims.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the LAT's jurisdiction is strictly statutory and does not include punitive damages, as established by binding Court of Appeal precedent.

The court also rejected the constitutional challenge, finding the legislature clearly and validly removed jurisdiction over these claims from the courts to the LAT.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) moved for an order sealing part of the record in an underlying application for judicial review and preventing further dissemination of the documents.

The documents were found by an adjudicator to be covered by solicitor-client privilege and deliberative secrecy.

The applicant and the affiant opposed the motion.

The court granted the sealing order, finding that the criteria in Sherman Estate were met and that opening the documents to the public before the proceedings were decided would irreparably compromise the privilege and secrecy.

The appellant insurer appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) decision finding the respondent eligible for funding for an attendant care benefit assessment.

The respondent suffered minor injuries in a motor vehicle accident but was removed from the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) due to a pre-existing medical condition.

The insurer argued that because the injuries were minor, the respondent was excluded from attendant care assessments under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule (SABS).

The Divisional Court upheld the LAT's interpretation that once a claimant is removed from the MIG due to a pre-existing condition, they are no longer subject to the limits for minor injuries, and the test for services becomes what is reasonable and necessary.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant was denied income replacement benefits after her insurer discovered she misrepresented her address to obtain a lower premium.

The insurer subsequently charged her a retroactive premium increase.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal upheld the denial and refused to apply section 131 of the Insurance Act, which excuses non-compliance based on an insurer's conduct, finding it lacked equitable jurisdiction.

On appeal, the Divisional Court held the LAT erred in law by conflating equitable remedies with statutory relief under section 131, which the LAT has jurisdiction to apply.

The appeal was allowed and the matter remitted for a new hearing.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) brought a motion for leave to intervene as a friend of the court in an appeal of its own decision regarding a builder's licence renewal.

The LAT sought to make limited submissions on the statutory context, standard of review, procedural fairness, and statutory interpretation, without addressing the merits of the appeal.

The court granted the motion, finding that the LAT's proposed intervention would provide a useful perspective without compromising impartiality or causing undue delay, and imposed conditions on its participation.

The appellant appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) decision denying his claim for catastrophic impairment benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The LAT found that a subsequent fall and seizure was an intervening event not caused by the accident.

On appeal, the appellant argued the LAT breached procedural fairness by allowing the insurer to raise causation late, and erred by applying the 'but for' causation test instead of the 'material contribution' test.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the procedural fairness issue could not be raised for the first time on appeal, and that the LAT correctly applied the 'but for' test as this was not an exceptional case involving multiple tortfeasors.

The appellant appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) decision dismissing his claim for a catastrophic impairment designation following a motor vehicle accident.

The appellant argued the LAT erred in law by failing to properly assess his mental and pain disorders and by ignoring key psychiatric evidence.

The LAT had subsequently issued a reconsideration decision that supplemented its original reasons and addressed these alleged errors, concluding that even if it had erred, the result would not change.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the LAT acted within its jurisdiction under its reconsideration rules to review the evidence in light of alleged legal errors and confirm its original decision.

The Chief Animal Welfare Inspector sought judicial review of a decision by the Animal Care Review Board that reduced a $58,672.98 statement of account for the care of 80 cats to $1,800 based solely on the owner's inability to pay.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Board had broad discretion under section 38(9) of the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act to vary a statement of account and that considering an owner's ability to pay was not unreasonable or contrary to the statutory scheme.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) brought a motion for leave to intervene as a friend of the court in an appeal of its own decision regarding statutory accident benefits.

The appellant opposed the motion, while the respondent consented.

The Divisional Court granted the motion, finding that the LAT could make a useful and distinct contribution on the statutory and procedural context and procedural fairness.

However, the court restricted the LAT from making submissions on the standard of review or reasonable apprehension of bias to avoid the tribunal defending its own decision.

The applicant insurer brought an urgent motion to stay a Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) proceeding pending a judicial review of the LAT's refusal to grant an adjournment.

The applicant's newly retained counsel had scheduling conflicts with the set hearing dates.

Applying the RJR-MacDonald test, the court found there was a serious issue to be tried regarding procedural fairness and right to counsel of choice.

However, the court concluded the applicant failed to establish irreparable harm, as other counsel from the firm might be available or the presiding official could address fairness concerns at the hearing.

The balance of convenience favoured the respondent, who had been waiting for benefits.

The motion for a stay was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) decision denying her ongoing income replacement and psychological benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

She argued she was denied procedural fairness because the insurer's psychological expert did not produce raw test data until mid-hearing, and that the LAT erred in finding the insurer made 'best efforts' to produce the file.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no denial of procedural fairness as the appellant had sufficient time to review the data during a five-week adjournment and cross-examine the expert.

The Court also found the LAT applied the correct legal test for 'best efforts'.

The Chief Animal Welfare Inspector sought judicial review of two decisions by the Animal Care Review Board that varied statements of account for animal care to zero.

The Inspector undertook not to seek recovery of the funds or return of the animals, rendering the live dispute moot.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, declining to hear it on the basis that the Inspector had not exhausted adequate alternative remedies, specifically the Board's internal reconsideration process.

The appellant appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision finding she was not catastrophically impaired under s. 3.1(1) 2. iii of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The appellant suffered a severe and permanent alteration of the structure of her leg, but her functional mobility impairment (measured by the SCIM) was only temporary.

The Divisional Court upheld the adjudicator's interpretation that the SABS requires both the structural and functional alterations to be permanent to meet the catastrophic impairment threshold.

The appeal was dismissed.

The applicant abandoned their application for judicial review.

The respondent sought costs of $35,000 on a substantial indemnity basis or $25,000 on a partial indemnity basis.

The Divisional Court found the requested amounts to be far in excess of what is normally awarded in such cases and fixed costs at $10,000 all-inclusive, payable by the applicant to the respondent.

The applicant sought judicial review of an Ontario Parole Board decision suspending her parole and issuing a Canada-wide arrest warrant.

The applicant had continued to report to her parole officer for months after the suspension, unaware of the warrant, and was even told she had successfully completed her sentence.

The Divisional Court found exceptional circumstances justifying early intervention despite the usual requirement to exhaust administrative remedies.

The Court held that the Board breached its duty of procedural fairness by failing to effectively notify the applicant's parole officers of the suspension, and quashed the decision and related warrants.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Ontario Parole Board refusing to order a new hearing for her temporary absence permit application.

Prior to the judicial review hearing, the applicant was granted parole, rendering the application moot.

The applicant argued the court should still hear the matter to provide guidance to the Board on the proper framework for assessing temporary absence cases.

The Divisional Court declined to hear the application, applying the doctrine of mootness and emphasizing that the court's role on judicial review is to assess the reasonableness of specific decisions, not to impose analytical frameworks on administrative decision-makers.

The application was dismissed.

The Director of Vehicle Inspection Standards proposed to refuse the appellant's application to register a Motor Vehicle Inspection Station (MVIS) and to refuse her husband's registration as a Motor Vehicle Inspection Station Mechanic (MVIM).

The Director argued the appellant was merely resurrecting her husband's former business, which had numerous convictions for failing to submit required paperwork.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant would be the sole owner and manager of the new business and would handle all administrative duties, while her husband would only perform inspections.

The Tribunal directed the Director to refrain from carrying out the proposal and to issue the registrations, subject to a condition requiring quarterly reporting meetings for the first year.

The Registrar of Motor Vehicles ordered the cancellation of the appellant's Commercial Vehicle Operator's Registration (CVOR) certificates due to a poor safety record, including a failed audit, vehicle inspection deficiencies, and an unpaid fine.

The appellant appealed the cancellation to the Licence Appeal Tribunal.

The Tribunal found that while the Registrar's concerns were justified, the appellant had implemented an action plan and taken concrete steps to improve its safety performance.

The Tribunal modified the Registrar's order, replacing the cancellation with a 20-day suspension of the CVOR certificates.

The appellant appealed a 7-day Suspension and Seizure Order issued by the Registrar of Motor Vehicles regarding its Commercial Vehicle Operator's Registration (CVOR).

The Registrar issued the order due to the appellant's chronically poor safety record and failure to abide by previously imposed conditions.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that despite recent improvements and the hiring of a safety consultant, the appellant's prolonged history of poor safety performance provided reasonable grounds to believe it would not operate safely.

The Tribunal confirmed the 7-day suspension.

The appellants appealed a Notice of Proposal by the Director of Vehicle Inspection Standards to refuse to issue a Motor Vehicle Inspection Station (MVIS) licence and to refuse to register the individual appellant as an MVI mechanic.

The Tribunal found that while the appellants had rectified equipment deficiencies, the individual appellant's past conduct afforded reasonable grounds for belief that the business would not be operated with honesty and integrity.

Furthermore, the Tribunal found the individual appellant lacked current competence regarding safety standards.

The appeal was dismissed and the Director was directed to carry out the proposal to refuse the licence and registration.