Imtiaz Hosein

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 commenced a second application to the Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) seeking over $100 million in damages against her insurer, adjusters, and health professionals for alleged tortious conduct related to her statutory accident benefits (SABS) claim.

The LAT declined to process the application, finding it lacked jurisdiction to award damages or make orders against non-insurer parties.

The applicant sought judicial review and appealed to the Divisional Court.

The Court dismissed the proceedings under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, holding that the LAT is a statutory body without jurisdiction to award general or non-compensatory damages, and that the proceedings constituted an abuse of process and an impermissible collateral attack on a prior final LAT decision regarding her SABS.

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 plaintiff brought a motion seeking leave to correct the name of the defendant "John Doe" to Nisim Saban and Joseph Algai under the misnomer doctrine, or alternatively, to amend the Statement of Claim to add Nisim Saban, Joseph Algai, Mariana Slomyanski, and Slomyanski Law as defendants after the presumptive limitation period on the basis of discoverability.

The court denied the misnomer argument, finding the original pleading lacked sufficient particularity to identify the proposed defendants.

However, the court granted leave to add all proposed defendants under the discoverability rule, concluding that the plaintiff had provided a reasonable explanation for the delay in discovery and that the proposed defendants failed to demonstrate non-compensable prejudice.

The appellant appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that dismissed her motion to add a request for punitive damages to her application for accident benefits.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal for want of jurisdiction, finding that the Tribunal's ruling was not a final decision or order.

The Court emphasized that fragmentation and piecemeal appeals are discouraged in regulatory proceedings, and the appellant must wait until a final decision on the merits before appealing.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision barring him from proceeding with an appeal for catastrophic injury benefits due to his failure to attend an insurer's medical examination and provide documents.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the applicant had an adequate alternative remedy through a statutory right of appeal under the Licence Appeal Tribunal Act.

The court held that no exceptional circumstances existed to justify bypassing the statutory appeal process in favour of judicial review.

Three appeals were heard together to determine whether the Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) has jurisdiction under s. 7 of the Licence Appeal Tribunal Act to extend the two-year limitation period for filing appeals set out in s. 56 of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule (SABS).

The Divisional Court held that s. 7 does grant the LAT jurisdiction to extend the s. 56 limitation period, as the time limit is fixed 'under an Act' (the Insurance Act).

The Court dismissed the insurers' appeals challenging the LAT's jurisdiction and its exercise of discretion to grant extensions, finding no errors of law.

In the third appeal, where the adjudicator had found no jurisdiction, the Court allowed the appeal and remitted the matter back to the LAT to consider the extension request.

The applicant sought judicial review of a preliminary decision by the Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) that stayed her application for statutory accident benefits until she consented to the release of insurer's examination reports.

The applicant had revoked her consent, arguing that the involvement of a third-party vendor compromised the independence of the assessments.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application for judicial review as premature, holding that absent exceptional circumstances, courts should not interfere with ongoing administrative processes until they are completed.

The court found no exceptional circumstances, noting that issues regarding the independence of medical assessments should be raised before the ultimate trier of fact.