Jesse Boyce

The appellant appealed and sought judicial review of a Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) decision finding she failed to establish catastrophic impairment under Criterion 8 of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The appellant argued the LAT adjudicator breached procedural fairness by imposing strict time limits on witness examinations, making unequal evidentiary rulings regarding expert psychiatric testimony, and admitting a late surveillance report.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the adjudicator's procedural choices were within her discretion to control the tribunal's process and did not result in unfairness.

The court also found no error of law in the LAT's application of the test for catastrophic impairment.

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/appellant commenced a second application to the Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) seeking damages and declaratory relief against her insurer and various non-insurer parties for alleged tortious conduct related to her statutory accident benefits (SABS) claims.

The LAT dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction, noting it had no authority to award damages or make orders against non-insurers.

The applicant/appellant appealed to the Divisional Court.

The Court issued a notice under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and subsequently dismissed the proceedings as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process, finding that the LAT lacks statutory jurisdiction to grant the requested relief and that the proceedings were an impermissible collateral attack on a prior final LAT decision.

The applicant sought judicial review and appeal of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision denying his claim for attendant care benefits.

The LAT found that the applicant failed to prove his family members sustained an economic loss in providing care, as required by s. 3(7)(e) of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The applicant conceded the LAT correctly interpreted the provision but argued the requirement conflicted with the consumer protection mandate of the legislation and produced an absurd result.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that there was no ambiguity in the legislation and that rewriting the statute to achieve a perceived equitable result was not a justiciable issue.

The applicant insurer sought a stay of an interlocutory scheduling order made by the Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) denying an adjournment of a complex catastrophic impairment hearing.

The Divisional Court found exceptional circumstances justifying intervention, noting the LAT's decision was unreasonable and failed to balance institutional concerns with the legitimate interests of the parties and their counsel's availability.

Applying the RJR-MacDonald test, the court granted the stay, vacated the scheduled hearing dates, and directed the LAT to reschedule the hearing to mutually available dates.

The self-represented applicant brought a motion requesting that the triage judge recuse herself from his application for judicial review due to potential bias.

The applicant argued that the judge was formerly a partner at a law firm that had represented an employee of the respondent insurer in a divorce proceeding over six years prior.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that a reasonable person would not apprehend bias given the passage of time, the judge's lack of personal involvement with the individual, and the individual's peripheral role in the current proceedings.

The appellant, a pedestrian injured in a car accident, appealed the Licence Appeal Tribunal's denial of her request to adjourn a hearing regarding her catastrophic impairment designation.

The adjournment was sought due to a breakdown in her solicitor-client relationship on the eve of the hearing.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the appellant was denied procedural fairness as she demonstrated a complete inability to represent herself at the complex hearing.

The matter was remitted to the LAT for a new hearing on the merits.

The appellant appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) decision denying her entitlement to post-104-week income replacement benefits under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no errors of law.

The court affirmed that new binding case law does not constitute new evidence for a reconsideration request, and held that the insurer's denial letter adequately complied with the statutory notice requirements under s. 37(4) of the SABS.

The appellant appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision dismissing her claim for statutory accident benefits due to a two-year delay in notifying her insurer.

The appellant argued the Tribunal erred in law by dismissing the claim under s. 55(1)1 of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule, asserting that s. 32(10) provided the insurer's exclusive remedy of extra time to respond.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that s. 32(10) does not preclude the dismissal of a claim under s. 55(1)1 where the claimant fails to provide a reasonable explanation for the delay.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) declining to add a claim for punitive damages to a dispute over Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule (SABS) claims.

Relying on its concurrent decision in Keulen v. Allstate Insurance Company, the Divisional Court held that the LAT does not have the authority to award punitive damages.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent insurer.