Tanner Blomme

The appellant sought judicial review and appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision finding that her application for statutory accident benefits was time-barred.

The appellant argued the insurer's notice of refusal did not comply with s. 54 of the SABS because it failed to detail all levels of appeal and misleadingly stated a hard two-year limitation period without explaining discoverability.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that s. 54 only requires notice of the right to dispute the refusal at the Tribunal, not subsequent appeal rights.

The Court also found the notice was not misleading, as detailing discoverability principles could detract from the clarity of the warning and confuse claimants.

The respondent suffered injuries after slipping and falling on ice in a parking lot while reaching for his vehicle's door handle.

He received statutory accident benefits (SABs) after a LAT adjudicator found the incident was an 'accident' under the SABs Schedule.

He subsequently sued the parking lot owner and winter maintenance provider for occupiers' liability.

The appellants moved to determine whether any damages awarded must be reduced by the SABs received under s. 267.8 of the Insurance Act, and whether OHIP's subrogated claim was barred under s. 30(5) of the Health Insurance Act.

The motion judge found the tort claim did not arise directly or indirectly from the use or operation of an automobile, meaning the statutory deductions and subrogation bars did not apply.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the motion judge's substantive approach or her conclusion that the context and purpose of the LAT proceeding differed from the tort action, precluding abuse of process or issue estoppel.

The appellant was severely injured in a bicycle collision and rendered mentally incapable of making decisions.

She applied for non-earner benefits under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule (SABS) but was denied benefits for the period before her disability certificate was submitted, pursuant to s. 36(3).

The Licence Appeal Tribunal upheld the denial.

On appeal, the Divisional Court held that the Tribunal erred by failing to consider s. 34 of the SABS, which excuses non-compliance with time limits if there is a reasonable explanation.

The Court found that s. 34 applies to the requirement in s. 36(3), and remitted the matter to the Tribunal to determine if the appellant's incapacity constituted a reasonable explanation.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that denied her non-earner benefits for a specific period due to her failure to submit a completed disability certificate (OCF-3) under s. 36(3) of the Schedule.

The applicant argued that the Tribunal erred in its strict interpretation of s. 36(3), asserting that the provision should not apply to an incapable applicant, and that the Tribunal failed to properly consider the Human Rights Code and the Charter.

The Vice-Chair dismissed the reconsideration request, finding that the applicant was attempting to re-litigate arguments made at the initial hearing and had failed to establish any error of law or fact under Rule 18.2(b).

The applicant was injured in a bicycle-automobile collision and suffered a traumatic brain injury.

She applied for a non-earner benefit but the insurer denied payment for the period before she submitted her disability certificate (OCF-3), relying on s. 36(3) of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The applicant argued that s. 36(3) should be interpreted to exempt incapable applicants, or alternatively, that it violates the Charter and the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal rejected the applicant's interpretation, finding the language of s. 36(3) clear and mandatory.

The Tribunal also found the applicant failed to establish a constitutional or Code violation.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits for chiropractic treatment plans and a chronic pain assessment.

The insurer denied the benefits.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant suffered from a persistent and complex pattern of musculoskeletal complaints, primarily lower back pain, caused by the accident.

The Tribunal concluded that the proposed chiropractic treatments and the chronic pain assessment were reasonable and necessary.

The applicant was awarded the claimed amounts plus interest.

The appellant, C.B., appealed two decisions of the Consent and Capacity Board: one confirming a Community Treatment Order (CTO) and its Community Treatment Plan (CTP), and another confirming his incapacity regarding treatment with antipsychotic medications.

The court upheld the Board's finding of incapacity for antipsychotic medication, applying the correct legal test and finding no palpable and overriding error.

The appeal regarding the CTO and CTP was dismissed as moot because the May 2021 CTO had expired, a new CTO was issued based on a fresh capacity assessment, and this new CTO was subsequently confirmed by the Board.

The court declined to exercise its discretion to hear the moot issues, citing a change in the evidentiary basis of the dispute and judicial economy.

The appellant, under a detention order from the Ontario Review Board (ORB) following a Not Criminally Responsible (NCR) finding, appealed the ORB's decision to continue his detention.

The appellant argued the ORB erred in finding he posed a significant risk to public safety and sought an absolute or conditional discharge.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the ORB's conclusion that the appellant posed a significant risk, based on psychiatric evidence of likely decompensation and violence if discharged, was reasonable.

The court also found the ORB reasonably considered and rejected a conditional discharge, given the risk of rapid deterioration.

The appellant, found Not Criminally Responsible (NCR), appealed a detention order, arguing for a conditional discharge as the least onerous and restrictive disposition.

The Court of Appeal upheld the Ontario Review Board's decision, finding that the Board reasonably rejected a conditional discharge.

The Board's decision was based on the appellant's history of non-compliance with hospital stays, her limited insight into her mental illness, and the unsuitability of the proposed housing with her husband, given their problematic relationship and her past unstable housing as a risk factor.

The court found no error in the Board's assessment that a detention order was necessary to manage the significant risk to public safety.