CITATION: Gutierrez v. Security National Insurance Company, 2025 ONSC 5174

DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 326/25

DATE: 20250917

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE – ONTARIO DIVISIONAL COURT

RE: RYAN GUTIERREZ Applicant

AND:

SECURITY NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY and

LICENCE APPEAL TRIBUNAL Respondents

BEFORE: Backhouse, Nakatsuru and O’Brien JJ.

COUNSEL: Self-represented Applicant

Michael Kennedy, for the Respondent, Security National Insurance Company

Valerie Crystal, for the Respondent, Licence Appeal Tribunal

HEARD at Toronto: September 9, 2025

ENDORSEMENT

[1] The applicant seeks judicial review of the March 29, 2025 Decision (the “Decision”) and the June 23, 2025 Reconsideration Decision (collectively the “Decisions”) of the Licence Appeal Tribunal (the “LAT” or the “Tribunal”). The Decisions dismissed the applicant’s claim for accident benefits as a result of a motor vehicle accident that occurred in Quebec on October 13, 2021 pursuant to the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule—Effective September 1, 2010, O. Reg. 34/10. O Reg 34/10 (the “Schedule”).

[2] The Tribunal found that the applicant did not prove that the accident caused him to be unable to hold employment and denied his claim for income replacement benefits.

[3] The Tribunal also refused the applicant’s request to add a claim for pain and suffering and in addition found that he did not establish his entitlement to pain and suffering by adducing medical evidence.

[4] Finally, the Tribunal dismissed the applicant’s claim of bad faith and unfair dealing on the basis that there are no benefits payable so there is no basis for an award for unreasonably withholding or delaying payment of benefits.

[5] We are satisfied that pursuant to Yatar v. TD Insurance Meloche Monnex, 2024 SCC 8, the court should exercise its discretion to hear this application for judicial review notwithstanding that no appeal has been brought and taking into account that the applicant is self -represented. The standard of review is reasonableness.

[6] According to the OCF-1 form the applicant provided, he was involved in a rear-end collision. The only injury listed on the form was whiplash. This is the sole documentation indicating any impairment—there were no treatment records or disability certificates submitted to support claims of accident-related impairment. During the LAT Case Conference that was held on November 16, 2023, the applicant was ordered to submit various documents, including medical records, employment files, and tax returns from the year before the accident to the present. The applicant did not provide the requested documents.

[7] A written LAT hearing proceeded, following which the Tribunal found that he did not prove that the accident caused him to be unable to hold employment.

[8] On reconsideration the Tribunal found that the applicant failed to present sufficient medical evidence that his injuries rendered him unable to work and therefore failed to substantiate entitlement to Income Replacement Indemnity benefits.

[9] The applicant stated that he disagrees with the finding that the medical evidence he produced was insufficient. He submits that he produced all the documentation the doctor provided to him and it was unfair that the insurer and the adjudicator at the case conference did not assist him as a self -represented litigant.

[10] The Tribunal’s finding that the medical evidence the applicant produced was insufficient is a finding of fact to which deference is owed. Having not produced the documents ordered at the case conference to be produced, it is hard to see how any other conclusion could be reached. There is no merit to this submission.

[11] The applicant submits that the LAT’s decision not to add the additional issue of pain and suffering indemnity at the hearing was unreasonable. The LAT found that adding the new issue at the hearing would unduly delay the adjudication of the other issues because the applicant failed to obtain the necessary medical evidence to adjudicate the issue. The LAT held that the applicant had other procedural avenues available to advance the new issue -- he could commence a fresh application before the Tribunal.

[12] There was nothing unreasonable in the LAT’s decision not to add the new issue which was within the LAT’s purview to control its own processes. Deference is owed to an administrative decision-maker’s procedural choices: Baker v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 1999 699 (SCC), [1999] 2 SCR 817.

[13] The applicant makes allegations that the respondent insurer acted in bad faith by making an offer that was much lower than what the applicant was statutorily entitled to. The applicant also alleges unfairness and bias on the part of the Tribunal for failing to consider his claim of bad faith and in the general adjudication of his claim.

[14] Having found that the applicant was not entitled to benefits, there cannot be bad faith on the part of the insurer for failing to make an offer. A special award under the relevant legislation must be connected to an unreasonable withholding or delay of a disputed benefit to which the applicant is entitled: Insurance Act, RSO 1990, c I.8, Section 10 of Ontario Regulation 664. As a result of the Tribunal determining that the applicant was not entitled to benefits, it appropriately concluded that no special award was payable.

[15] The applicant’ allegations of bad faith, unfairness and bias are not particularized, are unsupported and amount to a collateral attack on the Decisions. There is no merit to these submissions.

[16] The applicant seeks punitive damages on this judicial review application on the basis that the disproportional financial resources of insurance companies against the limited resources of individual claimants can result in a claimant being forced into an unfair settlement.

[17] The Legislature specifically excluded punitive damages from the available remedies to address insurer misconduct. Since punitive damages were unavailable at the Tribunal, it follows that a judicial review cannot be used to indirectly grant a common law remedy that was intentionally excluded by the Legislature: Keulen v Allstate Insurance Co., 2024 ONSC 2033 at paras 14-20. (Div. Ct.). Had punitive damages been available, this would not be an appropriate case to have awarded them.

[18] The applicant submits that the time between the scheduled hearing and the issuance of the decision on March 28, 2025 was double the Tribunal’s stated target for release and amounts to a denial of justice.

[19] While the 8-month passage of time is substantial, absent specific evidence of procedural unfairness or prejudice arising from the delay, this ground does not rise to the threshold required to constitute a basis for judicial intervention.

[20] The applicant submits that the Tribunal erred in excluding the insurer’s settlement offer made before the application to the LAT was commenced as protected by settlement privilege.

[21] As noted by the Tribunal, the redacted portions of the evidence would not have impacted on the outcome of the issue of bad faith. The applicant has not demonstrated that the redaction caused any prejudice or procedural unfairness. There is no merit to this ground.

Conclusion

[22] The application is dismissed with costs in the amount of $5000 to be paid by the applicant to Security National Insurance Company.

Backhouse J.

Nakatsuru J.

O’Brien J.

Released: September 17, 2025