Douglas Lee

The appellant appealed and sought judicial review of a Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) decision finding she was not an 'insured person' under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The appellant's uninsured son was in an accident, and they sought benefits under her brother's spouse's policy, requiring proof of dependency.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the LAT did not breach procedural fairness by holding a written hearing and made no error of law in applying both a 'big picture' and mathematical approach to conclude the appellant was not principally dependent on the named insured.

The appellant was catastrophically injured in a motor vehicle accident and received statutory accident benefits from the respondent insurer.

The insurer subsequently initiated a priority dispute with the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Fund and denied further benefits.

At the Licence Appeal Tribunal, the insurer successfully moved to determine as a preliminary issue whether the appellant was an 'insured person', resulting in the dismissal of the appellant's claim.

On appeal, the Divisional Court held that the LAT's decision to proceed with the preliminary issue while the priority dispute was pending constituted an abuse of process, as it undermined the 'pay now, dispute later' statutory scheme designed to ensure continuity of benefits.

The applicant appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision finding she was not catastrophically impaired following a motor vehicle accident.

At the hearing, the Tribunal admitted the respondent insurer's expert psychiatric reports but refused to issue a summons to compel the expert's attendance for cross-examination due to non-compliance with procedural rules.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that the Tribunal's strict application of its rules and refusal to facilitate the cross-examination of a key expert witness on a critical issue breached the applicant's right to procedural fairness.

The matter was remitted to the Tribunal for a new hearing.

At a case conference, the Licence Appeal Tribunal sought leave to participate substantively in an appeal and judicial review of its decision regarding whether a wheel loader is an 'automobile' under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The respondent injured party was not participating in the appeal.

The court applied the Goodis and Ontario Power Generation factors and granted the Tribunal expanded participation on all issues, provided it does not advocate for a particular outcome or adopt an adversarial tone.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) decision dismissing her claims for statutory accident benefits, including income replacement benefits, catastrophic impairment designation, and attendant care benefits.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the LAT's decisions regarding the 104-week deadline for income replacement benefits, the assessment of catastrophic impairment criteria, and the reduction of attendant care benefits were reasonable.

The court also rejected the applicant's claims of procedural fairness violations, concluding that the LAT appropriately controlled its own process.

The applicant appealed and sought judicial review of Licence Appeal Tribunal decisions dismissing her claims for income replacement benefits and medical expenses, and ordering the destruction of internal tribunal documents she submitted as evidence of institutional bias.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal and application, finding no error of law in the Tribunal's determination that the insurer's examination notices complied with the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The Court also upheld the Tribunal's orders striking the applicant's reply evidence and directing the destruction and non-dissemination of internal documents, concluding that the Tribunal reasonably exercised its jurisdiction to control its process and properly applied the doctrines of solicitor-client privilege and deliberative secrecy.

The applicant sought judicial review of a tribunal decision that imposed a 30-day suspension and conditions on a liquor licence rather than revoking it.

The tribunal found the licensee had breached conditions and failed to facilitate an inspection, but concluded a suspension was appropriate given the principal's health issues and lack of prior warnings.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the tribunal's penalty and reliance on the public interest were reasonable.

The appellant appealed and sought judicial review of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that denied her catastrophic impairment designation and income replacement benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The appellant argued that the Vice-Chair provided insufficient reasons, relied on issues not raised in the denial letters, denied her procedural fairness, and made unreasonable findings of fact.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal and application for judicial review, finding that the Vice-Chair provided comprehensive reasons, properly applied the 'but for' test for causation, afforded procedural fairness, and made reasonable findings based on the evidence.

The appellant appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision upholding the Registrar's refusal to register him as a motor vehicle salesperson due to past misconduct involving sexually explicit and inappropriate messages sent to a former co-worker and a customer.

On appeal, the appellant argued procedural unfairness, alleging ineffective assistance by his paralegal and improper admission of hearsay evidence.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the appellant failed to establish the factual basis for ineffective assistance of counsel and that the tribunal's admission of hearsay evidence, including the appellant's own admissions against interest, did not render the hearing unfair.

The applicant appealed and sought judicial review of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision upholding the insurer's denial of medical and rehabilitation benefits beyond the $3,500 Minor Injury Guideline limit.

The applicant argued the Tribunal erred in finding he did not suffer from chronic pain, misapplied the AMA Guides, misapplied the pre-existing condition exception under s. 18(2) of the SABS, and breached procedural fairness by disregarding illegible clinical notes.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal and application, finding the Tribunal's factual conclusions were reasonable, it was entitled to weigh the expert medical evidence, and there was no breach of procedural fairness in a written hearing where the applicant provided illegible records.

The moving party, Aviva General Insurance Company, sought leave to appeal a Divisional Court decision that found Carrie-Anne Davis suffered an "accident" under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule (SABS) after slipping on ice near her car.

The Court of Appeal clarified that the `Sault Dock` framework for leave to appeal remains unchanged, despite recent comments in `West Whitby`.

The Court denied leave, finding the dispute largely fact-specific and that Aviva had not presented an arguable case to change the settled SABS "accident" test.

The moving party sought to set aside a Registrar's order dismissing her motion for leave to appeal a Divisional Court decision.

The Divisional Court had upheld a Board decision regarding the removal of 41 cats due to unsanitary conditions and a substantial statement of account for their care, finding the moving party's stay motion moot as the cats were forfeited to the Crown.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion to set aside, finding no substantiated evidence for the moving party's asserted reasons for delay and concluding that the proposed appeal lacked merit, especially given a prior extension of time had already been granted.

The applicant sought judicial review of the Minister of Transportation's decisions to request a medical examination and subsequently suspend his driver's licence, as well as the Licence Appeal Tribunal's decision dismissing his appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

The Minister's actions were prompted by a police report raising concerns about the applicant's hearing and vision.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the LAT reasonably concluded it lacked jurisdiction under the Highway Traffic Act to hear the appeal.

The Court also held that the Minister's decisions were reasonable, procedurally fair, and did not violate the applicant's Charter rights.

The appellant appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision denying her claim for catastrophic impairment and income replacement benefits following a 2015 motor vehicle accident.

The Tribunal had found that the accident was not a necessary cause of her psychological impairment and that a subsequent 2018 volleyball injury was an intervening event.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no extricable errors of law in the Tribunal's assessment of causation, pre-existing injuries, or the intervening event.

This appeal concerns the interpretation of Ontario's Statutory Accident Benefits Schedules regarding attendant care benefits (ACBs) for a catastrophically injured individual.

The key issues were whether an applicant for ACBs must demonstrate "urgency, impossibility, or impracticability" to claim retroactive benefits under s. 42(5) of the 2010 Schedule, and whether the definition of "incurred" from s. 3(7)(e) of the 2010 Schedule applies to claims arising from accidents predating its enactment (specifically, the 1996 Schedule).

The Court of Appeal found that s. 42(5) relates to the timing of payment, not eligibility, and does not impose a "urgency" test for retroactive claims.

It further held that the definition of "incurred" in the 2010 Schedule does not apply to claims governed by the 1996 Schedule, based on a careful reading of the transitional provisions.

The appeal was allowed, entitling the applicant to retroactive ACBs without substantiation under the 2010 Schedule's "incurred" definition.

The applicant sought judicial review of an Animal Care Review Board decision upholding the warrantless seizure of 41 cats from her apartment.

The applicant failed to attend the Board hearing to present her Charter arguments, and the Board proceeded in her absence, finding the warrantless entry justified under s. 29 of the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the Board's refusal to grant a further adjournment was procedurally fair and its conclusion on the warrantless entry was reasonable.

The appellant sought to rescind a 2002 settlement for Statutory Accident Benefits, arguing the insurer's disclosure notice failed to strictly comply with regulatory requirements.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed her request, finding the notice adequate.

On appeal, the Divisional Court found the Tribunal erred in placing the burden of proof on the insured and applying a 'some compliance' standard instead of the bright-line test from Smith.

However, applying the correct test, the Court concluded the defects in the notice were merely technical and did not deprive the appellant of important information.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant sought judicial review and appealed five decisions of the Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) regarding her claims for statutory accident benefits following a 2007 motor vehicle accident.

The LAT had dismissed several claims as statute-barred, refused to extend the limitation period, and dismissed the remaining claims on their merits for failure to provide required information and treatment plans.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeals and judicial review applications, finding the LAT's decisions were reasonable, contained no errors of law, and did not breach procedural fairness or exhibit bias.

The appellant appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision denying her income replacement benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

At the time of the accident, the appellant was an on-call agency worker who had not worked for six weeks.

The Divisional Court upheld the Tribunal's finding that the appellant was not 'employed' under s. 5(1)1(i) of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule, applying the interpretation from Arab v. Unica Insurance that employment requires the exchange of remuneration for services over a defined period.

The appeal was dismissed.

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.