Kaitlin Brennan

The appellant insurer appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision which held that Employment Insurance (EI) sickness benefits were not deductible from the respondent's Income Replacement Benefits (IRBs) under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding the adjudicator erred in law by creating an ambiguity where none existed and by distinguishing sickness benefits from other EI benefits.

The Court held that all EI benefits, including sickness benefits, fall within the definition of gross employment income and must be deducted from IRBs at the rate of 70 per cent.

The respondent insurer filed a request for reconsideration of a decision finding that the applicant was entitled to payment of an income replacement benefit that was improperly deducted due to her receipt of Employment Insurance sickness benefits.

The insurer argued the Tribunal erred in law by determining that EI sickness benefits were not deductible as gross employment income under s. 7(3) of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding no error of law in its original interpretation that a genuine conflict exists in the Schedule and that EI sickness benefits fall within the temporary disability benefit exclusion under s. 47(3)(f)(i).

The applicant property owner sought a declaration that the respondents breached an agreement of purchase and sale, an eviction order, and damages.

The respondent brought a motion to stay the application, arguing the Landlord and Tenant Board had exclusive jurisdiction under the Residential Tenancies Act.

The court found that a landlord and tenant relationship existed and the parties could not contract out of the Act, meaning the applicant must comply with the Act for eviction.

However, the court declined to stay the entire application, as the claims for breach of contract and damages fell outside the Board's exclusive jurisdiction.