Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number: 25-003160/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:
Joy Dietrich
Applicant
and
CAA Insurance Company
Respondent
PRELIMINARY ISSUE DECISION
ADJUDICATOR:
Trina Morissette, Vice-Chair
APPEARANCES:
For the Applicant:
Shahzad Ayub, Counsel
For the Respondent:
Jeffrey F. Pasternak, Counsel
HEARD:
In writing
OVERVIEW
1Joy Dietrich, the applicant, was involved in an automobile accident on November 18, 2020, and sought benefits from CAA Insurance Company, the respondent, 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 the respondent and applied to the Licence Appeal Tribunal (“the Tribunal”) for resolution of the dispute.
PRELIMINARY ISSUE IN DISPUTE
2The preliminary issue to be decided is whether the applicant is barred from proceeding to a hearing for an income replacement benefit (“IRB”) by the doctrine of res judicata?
RESULT
3The applicant is barred from proceeding to a hearing for an IRB by the doctrine of res judicata.
BACKGROUND
4On January 18, 2023, the applicant filed her first application (“the prior application”) with the Tribunal under Tribunal File Number 23-000577/AABS. The parties participated in a case conference on August 25, 2023, and a Case Conference Report and Order (“CCRO”) was issued to the parties on September 5, 2023. The CCRO identified the substantive issues in dispute being an IRB, two treatment plans for chiropractic services, attendant care benefits, an award, and interest. The matter was ordered to proceed to a written hearing which was subsequently scheduled for May 10, 2024.
5On January 28, 2025, the Tribunal’s decision on the matter (“the January 2025 Decision”) was released to the parties. In paragraphs 22 to 25 of the decision, the Tribunal found that the applicant:
i. Fell short of establishing that she is entitled to a higher quantum of IRB from November 26, 2020 to March 24, 2023;
ii. Had not established that she suffers a complete inability to engage in any employment or self-employment for which she is reasonably suited by education, training or experience; and
iii. Had not met her onus to establish entitlement to post-104 week IRBs.
The Tribunal also found that the applicant was not entitled to the medical and rehabilitation benefits in dispute, interest or an award. There is no indication in the January 2025 Decision that attendant care benefits were addressed.
6On February 18, 2025, the applicant filed a request for reconsideration of the January 2025 Decision regarding the medical and rehabilitation benefits and the award. The applicant did not request reconsideration of the findings for the IRB. In a Reconsideration Decision dated April 25, 2025, the applicant’s reconsideration request was dismissed.
7On March 10, 2025 – while the Reconsideration Decision was still pending – the applicant filed the current application. The application lists the issues in dispute as:
i. Whether the applicant sustained a catastrophic impairment (“CAT”);
ii. Whether the applicant is entitled to an IRB in the amount of $400.00 per week, from March 15, 2023 to date and ongoing;
iii. Whether the applicant is entitled to physiotherapy services in the amount of $2,200.00; and
iv. Interest and an award.
ANALYSIS
8For the reasons that follow, I find that the applicant is barred from proceeding with her claim for an IRB based on the doctrine of res judicata.
9The doctrine of res judicata prevents a party from relitigating an issue that has already been decided. According to Danyluk v. Ainsworth Technologies Inc., 2001 SCC 44 (“Danyluk”) at para. [25](https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2001/2001scc