Kevin Griffiths

The appellant appealed a License Appeal Tribunal (LAT) decision denying his claims for a catastrophic impairment designation, attendant care benefits, and various treatment plans following a motor vehicle accident.

The Divisional Court found no errors of law in the LAT Vice-Chair's application of the 'but for' causation test or her factual findings that the appellant's ongoing impairments were not accident-related.

The court also held that the LAT correctly dismissed the claims for treatment plans and attendant care benefits, as the appellant had no accident-related impairments during the relevant periods.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant insurer appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) decision ordering it to pay for disputed chiropractic treatment plans once incurred.

The insurer argued the LAT lacked jurisdiction to order payment for expenses not yet incurred prior to the hearing.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the LAT has broad remedial powers to determine entitlement to benefits, and requiring claimants to self-fund disputed treatments before accessing the LAT would defeat the consumer protection purpose of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The Ontario Trial Lawyers Association (OTLA) brought a motion for leave to intervene as a friend of the court in an application for judicial review concerning the interpretation of catastrophic impairment.

The applicant opposed the motion, arguing OTLA's interest was indirect and the case involved straightforward statutory interpretation.

The court granted the motion, finding that OTLA had expertise, could provide a broader perspective on the legislative scheme, and its participation would not prejudice the parties.

Leave to intervene was granted subject to conditions.