Date: 2016-06-30
Tribunal File Number: 16-000448/AABS & 16-000449/AABS
Case Name: 16-000448 & 16-000449 v State Farm
In the matter of an Application for Dispute Resolution pursuant to subsection 280(2) of the Insurance Act, RSO 1990, c I.8., in relation to statutory accident benefits.
And in the matter of a Notice of Motion brought by A. A., the Applicant who is seeking that the fee to file the Application by an Injured Person for Auto Insurance Dispute Resolution under the Insurance Act in the amount of $100.00 charged by the Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) be waived.
Between:
A. A.
Applicant
and
State Farm
Respondent
MOTION ORDER
Format of Proceeding: Written Submissions of the Applicant Order made by: Jeanie Theoharis, Adjudicator
Date of Order: June 30, 2016
Overview
A. A. (the ‘applicant’) applied to the Licence Appeal Tribunal, Automobile Accident Benefits Service (LAT), pursuant to subsection 280(2) of Part VI of the Insurance Act R.S.O. 1990, c 1.8, as amended (the “Insurance Act”), for an order determining the applicant’s entitlement to statutory accident benefits, and in respect of the amount of statutory accident benefits to which the applicant may be entitled.
The application was filed with the LAT on May 31, 2016.
On May 31, 2016, pursuant to Rule 15 of the LAT Rules of Practice and Procedure, Version 1 (April 1, 2016) (the “LAT Rules”), the applicant brought a motion seeking to waive the $100.00 processing fee.
The Tribunal reviewed the applicant’s Notice of Motion. Based on this review, the Tribunal denies the motion.
Law
Pursuant to Section 9 of the Licence Appeal Tribunal Act, 1999, S.O. 1999, c. 12, Sched. G (the “LAT Act”) the Tribunal may establish fees or other charges to be paid by parties to hearings before the Tribunal. Neither the Insurance Act nor the LAT Act specifically permit the Tribunal to waive application processing fees.
Pursuant to LAT Rules 3.1(a) the Rules are to be liberally interpreted and applied to “[f]acilitate a fair, open and accessible process and to allow effective participation by all parties…”
LAT Rules 3.3 permits the Tribunal to decline to process an application if the processing fee has not been paid.
Analysis
The applicant failed to provide sufficient reasons in the motion material to support his request to waive the Tribunal processing fee.
The applicant, in his reasons for making the motion, requested that the Tribunal processing fee be waived pursuant to the Budget Measures Act (Fall), 2004, S.O. 2004, c.31-Bill 149, Schedule 1, Amendments To The Administration of Justice Act, (“Schedule 1”). Pursuant to that legislation, on January 11, 2016 the
applicant was granted a Fee Waiver Certificate in a Small Claims Court proceeding.1
- The Fee Waiver Certificate is issued pursuant to sections 4.3, 4.4, 4.5, 4.6 and
4.7 of the Administration of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990. C. A.6 (the “Administration of Justice Act”) and is limited to the Small Claims Court proceeding. The Administration of Justice Act applies to the maintenance and operation of the Ontario Courts of Justice. The applicant did not provide any evidence to establish that the Tribunal is bound by the Administration of Justice Act and on its face it does not apply to tribunals generally or this Tribunal in particular.
The Certificate excuses the named person from paying fees that would be payable on or after the date of the Certificate “with respect to the proceeding or case described above [the Small Claims Court action]…” Moreover, the matter before the Tribunal is not procedurally related to the Small Claims Court action and the Tribunal is unaware if they have any common factual basis. The Tribunal can find no basis to suggest it is bound by the above Fee Waiver Certificate.
Even if the Tribunal was bound by the Budget Measures Act or the Administration of Justice Act, which I find we are not, the applicant has failed to provide a sufficiently strong factual basis for granting a fee waiver. The applicant’s reasons noted on their motion, including for instance the applicant’s Fee Waiver Certificate and a blanket statement that he has not been able to work due to being in various accidents are not sufficient to persuade me that the Tribunal ought to provide the applicant a fee waiver. As such, I do not find that the applicant’s request for a waiver of the Tribunal’s processing fee is warranted.
It is ordered that:
- The applicant’s motion is denied.
Date of Issue: June 30, 2016
Jeanie Theoharis, Adjudicator