Court File and Parties
CITATION: Ho v. Allstate Insurance, 2024 ONSC 6317
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 589/23, 595/23
DATE: 20241009
ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE DIVISIONAL COURT
MCCARTHY, MYERS, SHORE JJ.
BETWEEN:
THANH HO Applicant
– and –
ALLSTATE INSURANCE and LICENCE APPEAL TRIBUNAL Respondents
COUNSEL:
Kevin K. Doan, for the Applicant
Jennifer J. Griffiths and Nathan M. Fabiano, for Allstate Insurance
Gün Köleoğlu, for the Licence Appeal Tribunal
HEARD at Toronto (by videoconference): October 9, 2024
REASONS FOR DECISION
Myers J. (Orally):
[1] Mr. Ho seeks judicial review and also appeals the decision of the Licence Appeal Tribunal dated September 21, 2023, and the reconsideration decision dated December 21, 2023.
[2] Formally, although the tribunal is a party to this proceeding, the appeal is against only the insurer. The appeal is advanced under Divisional Court File No. 595/23. These reasons apply to both the application for judicial review and the appeal.
[3] In the decisions challenged by Mr. Ho, the tribunal held that he was bound by his 2004 written settlement of his claims against the insurer that arose from his car accident in 2000.
[4] Mr. Ho submits that because he did not sign the mandatory Statutory Disclosure Notice, the settlement does not comply with the requirements of s. 9.1(3)6 of R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 664 under the Insurance Act, R.S.O. 1990, c I.8. As a result, he submits, the two-business day rescission period under s. 9.1 (4) does not prevent him from rescinding the settlement now.
[5] Despite the submissions of counsel, both as a matter of law for appeal and as a matter of fact or mixed fact and law by way of judicial review, I see no merit in these proceedings.
[6] Mr. Ho entered into the settlement and initialed each page of the Statutory Disclosure Notice including the signature page. He took pen in hand and wrote his identifying marks on the pages to signify his acceptance of the settlement as required by the regulation. The fact that his initials were elsewhere on the page rather than on the signature line is the height of technicality.
[7] Accepting the version of the applicable statute and regulation submitted on behalf of Mr. Ho and accepting that the burden of proof was on the insurer to establish that the Statutory Disclosure Notice complied with the regulatory provisions, I see no error in the outcome nor any need for further evidence on this preliminary gating issue.
[8] There is no dispute that the test for compliance of an SDN is a bright-line test that does not allow for fine measurements of partial compliance or near compliance. But that does not allow a party to escape his agreement by technical arguments that are immaterial to the issue of the insurer’s compliance with the regulation and the regulatory intention.
[9] In recently re-affirming the bright-line nature of the test for compliance under s. 9.1 of the regulation, in Pope v. Pilot Insurance Company, 2024 ONSC 2932, this court also held that “[t]echnical and immaterial defects will not invalidate a notice.”
[10] It follows that despite the issues raised by Mr. Ho, the tribunal came to the correct and a reasonable decision on the merits.
Conclusion
[11] The application and the appeal are dismissed.
[12] Costs fixed at $10,000 all-inclusive are payable by the applicant to the respondent as agreed by counsel.
Myers J.
I agree:
McCarthy J.
I agree:
Shore J.
Oral Reasons Released: October 9, 2024 Written Endorsement Released: November 15, 2024
CITATION: Ho v. Allstate Insurance, 2024 ONSC 6317
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 589/23, 595/23
DATE: 20241009
ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE DIVISIONAL COURT
MCCARTHY, MYERS, SHORE JJ.
BETWEEN:
THANH HO Applicant
– and –
ALLSTATE INSURANCE and LICENCE APPEAL TRIBUNAL Respondents
ORAL REASONS FOR DECISION
MYERS J.
Oral Reasons Released: October 9, 2024 Written Endorsement Released: November 15, 2024