Court File and Parties
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 575/24
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE – ONTARIO
DIVISIONAL COURT
RE: AIG Insurance Company of Canada, Applicant/Moving Party
AND:
Catherine Riddell, Respondent
BEFORE: Davies J.
COUNSEL: Kadey Schultz and Karly Lyons, for the Appellant/Moving Party
Navneet Ranu, for the Respondent
Jesse Boyce, for the Licence Appeal Tribunal
HEARD: October 29, 2024 (by video)
Endorsement
1Catherine Riddell was one of the victims of the van attack on Yonge Street in Toronto on April 23, 2018 that resulted in the death of 10 people and caused severe injuries to many others.
2Ms. Riddell filed two applications before the Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT): one in November 2020 and one in April 2022. Those applications were withdrawn in October 2022.
3In December 2023, Ms. Riddell filed a new application before the LAT in which she claims she has suffered catastrophic impairment as a result of the incident. A case conference was held in May 2024 and the LAT ordered the matter to proceed to a hearing.
4In June 2024, the LAT gave counsel a list of possible dates for the hearing. There were no dates among those offered when all counsel were available. Counsel asked the LAT to provide other possible dates. The LAT declined to offer more dates and scheduled the hearing for seven days starting November 12, 2024.
5Neither counsel for AIG Insurance nor counsel for Ms. Riddell are available on the November dates. AIG Insurance sought an adjournment of those dates. Ms. Riddell did not oppose AIG’s request. The LAT denied the adjournment. Counsel for AIG submitted a request for reconsideration on September 20, 2024 but the LAT found it had no authority to reconsider an interim procedural decision.
6AIG Insurance has filed an application for judicial review of the LAT’s decision denying the adjournment and brought this motion to stay the underlying proceedings pending the hearing of its judicial review application.
7The LAT argues the judicial review application is premature and should be quashed. The LAT also argues the stay motion should be dismissed.
8The result of this stay motion will very likely resolve the underlying judicial review application one way or the other. In all the circumstances, I am exercising my discretion to adjourn the motion to a panel of the Divisional Court: Courts of Justice Act, s. 21(4).
9The motion is adjourned to a panel of three judges of the Divisional Court on Thursday, November 7, 2024 at 10:00 am. The hearing is scheduled for two hours and will proceed by video.
Davies J.
Date: October 31, 2024