8 total
Appeal allowed; LAT erred in law by finding limitation period expired without evidence of letter receipt.
The appellant appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) decision that time-barred her application for a catastrophic impairment designation.
The LAT found the two-year limitation period expired because the appellant received the denial letter on the day it was written.
The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding the LAT erred in law by making a material finding of fact without evidence and by reversing the onus of proof onto the appellant to show when the letter was received.
The matter was remitted to the LAT for a new hearing.
Request for reconsideration dismissed; applicant failed to establish errors of fact, law, or procedural fairness.
The applicant requested a reconsideration of a previous decision that dismissed her application for caregiver and non-earner benefits on the grounds of res judicata and being statute-barred.
The applicant argued that the Tribunal erred in fact and law and violated procedural fairness, specifically regarding the start date of the limitation period and the deemed receipt of the denial letter.
The Vice Chair found no errors of fact or law, noting that the applicant failed to provide evidence at the original hearing that the denial letter was mailed rather than given on its date.
The request for reconsideration was dismissed as the applicant was attempting to re-argue her case.
Appeal dismissed; toxic exposure during collision clean-up did not constitute an 'accident' under the SABS.
The appellant, an environmental clean-up worker, suffered impairments from toxic exposure while cleaning up a chemical spill caused by a fatal collision between two trucks.
He applied for statutory accident benefits, which were denied on the basis that the incident was not an 'accident' under s. 3(1) of the SABS.
The Licence Appeal Tribunal upheld the denial, finding that while the use of the vac-truck met the purpose test, it did not meet the causation test as the toxic substances, not the vehicle, directly caused the injuries.
The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the LAT made no errors of law in its articulation or application of the purpose and modified causation tests.
Judicial review dismissed; Charter challenge to the Minor Injury Guideline cannot be decided in a factual vacuum.
The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought a psychological assessment, which the insurer denied on the basis that the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) applied.
At arbitration, the Arbitrator found the MIG unconstitutional under s. 15 of the Charter without making any factual findings about the applicant's condition or whether the MIG actually precluded his benefits.
The Director's Delegate overturned this decision, holding that constitutional issues cannot be decided in a factual vacuum.
The Divisional Court dismissed the applicant's judicial review, affirming that the Arbitrator erred by deciding the Charter issue without a proper factual foundation.
Reconsideration request dismissed; Tribunal did not breach procedural fairness in determining attendant care quantum.
The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that awarded $3,047.27 in monthly attendant care benefits following a motor vehicle accident.
The applicant argued the Tribunal breached the rules of natural justice and procedural fairness by awarding an amount not specifically argued by either party.
The adjudicator dismissed the request, finding the Tribunal acted within its jurisdiction under the Insurance Act and based its quantum determination on a detailed analysis of the evidence and both parties' submissions.
The applicant failed to meet the high onus required to justify a reconsideration.
Out-of-province insurer bound by Ontario priority dispute rules after signing Power of Attorney and Undertaking.
The appellant, an out-of-province insurer, appealed an arbitrator's decision finding that the priority provisions in s. 268 of the Insurance Act applied to it for a motor vehicle accident that occurred in Ontario.
The appellant argued that applying the Ontario legislation would have an extra-jurisdictional effect.
The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, applying the reasonableness standard of review.
The court held that because the accident occurred in Ontario and the appellant had signed a Power of Attorney and Undertaking (PAU), it was bound by the priority provisions of the Insurance Act.
Applicant found catastrophically impaired due to marked psychiatric impairment caused by motor vehicle accident.
The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought a determination that she sustained a catastrophic impairment due to a mental or behavioural disorder.
The insurer argued that the applicant was not credible, that causation was not established due to pre-existing issues and subsequent accidents, and that her impairment was only mild to moderate.
The arbitrator found the applicant credible despite memory lapses, and concluded that the accident caused her major depressive disorder with psychotic features and posttraumatic stress disorder.
Preferring the evidence of the applicant's psychiatric assessor, the arbitrator held that the applicant sustained a marked (Class 4) impairment and was therefore catastrophically impaired.
The court affirmed that an employee had regular use of a company vehicle at the time of an accident because he was permitted to sleep in it the night before.
This case involves an appeal from an arbitrator's decision in an insurance priority dispute.
The arbitrator found that an employer (insured by Old Republic) made a vehicle available for an employee's regular use at the time of an accident, requiring Old Republic to pay statutory accident benefits.
The employee, a short-haul truck driver, was injured while driving his mother-in-law's car to work, but had permission to sleep in a company truck the night before a haul.
The Superior Court of Justice dismissed Old Republic's appeal, affirming the arbitrator's decision.
The court also clarified that correctness is the appropriate standard of review for such priority decisions where there is no significant factual issue to be decided.
