4 total
LAT has jurisdiction under s. 7 of the LAT Act to extend SABS limitation periods.
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.
Motion for leave to appeal dismissed with costs fixed at $1,800.
The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an earlier order.
The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding parties fixed at $1,800.
Divisional Court orders Licence Appeal Tribunal to intervene on appeal regarding its jurisdiction to extend limitation periods.
Three appeals were scheduled to be heard regarding 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 statutory accident benefits applications.
The LAT had previously made conflicting decisions on this issue and indicated it did not intend to appear.
The Divisional Court adjourned the appeals and ordered the LAT to intervene and file materials to assist the court in determining the jurisdictional issue.
Appeal dismissed; amended pleading for loss of interdependent relationship properly struck for lacking material facts.
The appellant appealed the dismissal of his action under Rules 20 and 21 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.
At trial, the appellant had amended his pleading to abandon all claims except for the pecuniary value of the alleged loss of an interdependent relationship (his marriage) following an accident.
The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's decision to strike the pleading under Rule 21, finding that the amended pleading contained virtually no material facts regarding the injuries, how they caused the marriage breakdown, or the associated economic loss.
The appeal was dismissed with costs.
