Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number: 20-010308/AABS
In the matter of an application pursuant to subsection 280(2) of the Insurance Act, RSO 1990, c I.8, in relation to statutory accident benefits.
Between:
Harpreet Grewal
Applicant
and
Peel Mutual Insurance Company
Respondent
DECISION
ADJUDICATOR:
Kevin Lundy
APPEARANCES:
For the Applicant:
Harpreet Grewal, Applicant
Imtiaz Hosein, Counsel
Christos Kakaletris, Student Observer
For the Respondent:
Jonathan Schrieder, Counsel
Interpreter:
Yash Kapur - (Punjabi language)
Court Reporter:
Jason Nebelung
Heard by Videoconference:
July 31, 2023
OVERVIEW
1Harpreet Grewal (the ‘applicant’) was involved in an automobile accident on November 7, 2016 and sought benefits pursuant to the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule - Effective September 1, 2010 (including amendments effective June 1, 2016) (the ‘Schedule’). The applicant was denied benefits by Peel Mutual Insurance Company (the ‘respondent’) and applied to the Licence Appeal Tribunal - Automobile Accident Benefits Service (the ‘Tribunal’) for resolution of the dispute.
2The applicant withdrew issues 2 through 12 below and the parties advised that issue 1 has been resolved. The applicant brought an oral motion to add the issue of punitive damages.
ISSUES
3The issues in dispute are:
Are the applicant’s injuries predominantly minor as defined in s. 3 of the Schedule and therefore subject to treatment within the $3,500.00 limit and in the Minor Injury Guideline?
Is the applicant entitled to $2,200.00 for a psychological assessment, recommended by Dr. S. Akram-Pall in a treatment plan (OCF-18) denied on October 22, 2019?
Is the applicant entitled to $4,140.25 for occupational therapy services, recommended by Okell Rehabilitation Services Inc. in a treatment plan dated October 13, 2020?
Is the applicant entitled to $5,692.09 for various assistive devices, recommended by Okell Rehabilitation Services Inc. in a treatment plan dated October 13, 2020?
Is the applicant entitled to the assessments proposed by Okell Rehabilitation Services Inc. as follows:
(i) $13,440.00 for a cost of catastrophic impairment assessment, in a treatment plan dated February 17, 2021;
(ii) $3,791.00 for occupational therapy, in a treatment plan dated June 30, 2021;
(iii) $4,487.57 for occupational therapy and assistive devices, dated April 11, 2022;
(iv) $4,695.00 for social work services, dated August 8, 2022; and
(v) $4,660.39 for occupational therapy services and assistive devices, dated July 21, 2022?
Is the applicant entitled to $2,500.80 for the cost of driving assessment, proposed by Drive Lab Inc., in a treatment plan dated June 15, 2021?
Is the applicant entitled to $3,469.58 for chiropractic and massage therapy treatment, proposed by HealthMax and St. Clair, in a treatment plan dated June 21, 2021?
Is the applicant entitled to $6,334.84 for psychological therapy, proposed by Kaplan & Levitt Psychologists., in a treatment plan dated October 29, 2021?
Is the applicant entitled to $33,790.00, proposed by Homewood Accommodations, in a treatment plan dated May 25, 2022?
Is the applicant entitled to $6,688.52 for the cost of rehabilitation support services, proposed by Anchor Rehabilitation Support Services Inc., in a treatment plan dated August 2, 2022?
Is the respondent liable to pay an award under section 10 of Regulation 664 because it unreasonably withheld or delayed payments to the applicant?
Is the applicant entitled to interest on any overdue payment of benefits?
RESULT
4As the applicant withdrew all of the issues in dispute, the Tribunal’s file is closed.
PROCEDURAL ISSUE
5On January 26, 2021, the applicant filed a Notice of Motion seeking to add a request for punitive damages in the amount of $150,000.00 to the dispute. Following written submissions from both sides, the parties presented oral arguments during a motion hearing held on April 6, 2021.
6On May 14, 2021, the Tribunal issued an order dismissing the applicant’s motion on the basis that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to grant punitive damages. On October 8, 2021, the Tribunal denied the applicant’s request to reconsider this decision. On October 16, 2021, the applicant appealed the decision to the Ontario Divisional Court on the basis that:
The Adjudicator erred in law in holding that the legislature has extinguished the right of statutory accident benefits victims from pursuing common law remedies.
The Adjudicator erred in law in holding that the Licence Appeal Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to award damages for an insurer’s breach of its contractual duty of good faith.
7On July 13, 2022, in Grewal v. Peel Mutual Insurance Company, 2022 ONSC 4082, the Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal for want of jurisdiction. The appeal must be with respect to a final decision or order of the Tribunal, and it must raise a question of law. As the present proceeding is still in the early stages and there has been no ruling on the merits of the application for accident benefits, the Court held that the appeal was premature. The Court explained that “it is preferable to avoid the fragmentation and delay in the administrative process that would result if appeals were available before there has been a final determination of a claim.” The Court concluded that the parties should complete the proceeding before the Tribunal respecting the appellant’s application, which has been on hold since the decision was made over a year ago. If the applicant decides to appeal the Tribunal’s final decision on the merits, the issue of the availability of punitive damages can be raised as an issue before the panel hearing the appeal.
8As a result, the stay of the proceedings was lifted and the Tribunal scheduled the present hearing.
9At the start of the hearing, the applicant again brought a motion to add punitive damages to the dispute; the respondent opposed the motion. I dismissed the motion on the basis that the Tribunal has already considered substantially the same motion and submissions and decided this issue in both the motion order dated May 14, 2021 and the order denying the applicant’s request for reconsideration dated October 8, 2021. I find no basis to depart from the thorough analysis contained both decisions. Further, to allow parties to make a request for the same remedy that has already been decided by another adjudicator, could result in an abuse of process as well as issue estoppel.
ORDER
The applicant’s motion to add punitive damages to the dispute is dismissed.
As the applicant withdrew all of the issues in dispute, the Tribunal’s file is closed.
Released: August 25, 2023
Kevin Lundy
Adjudicator