PRELIMINARY ISSUE HEARING DECISION AND ORDER
Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number: 24-004754/AABS-PI
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:
Mary Jeyaseelan, Applicant
and
Intact Insurance Company, Respondent
Adjudicator: Kate Grieves
Appearances:
For the Applicant: Ognjen Miketic, Counsel
For the Respondent: Doug Wallace, Counsel
Heard: By Way of Written Submissions
OVERVIEW
1Mary Jeyaseelan (the “applicant”) was involved in an accident on December 1, 2017, and sought benefits from Intact Insurance Company (the “respondent”) pursuant to the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule - Effective September 1, 2010 (including amendments effective June 1, 2016) (the “Schedule”).
2The applicant, through her counsel, Brad Duby, agreed to settle her accident benefits claim with the respondent for $8,000.001. A settlement disclosure notice executed by the applicant was provided by Mr. Duby to the respondent dated June 3, 2020.
3The respondent issued the settlement funds to Duby & Associates, in trust, on June 15, 2020. Tracking records indicate that the cheque was cleared, which I understand to mean it was cashed. Mr. Duby has since passed away.
4Ms. Jeyaseelan submitted an application to the Licence Appeal Tribunal - Automobile Accident Benefits Service (the “Tribunal”), alleging that she did not receive the settlement funds. She is seeking enforcement of the settlement agreement and payment of settlement funds.
PRELIMINARY ISSUE IN DISPUTE
5The preliminary issue to be decided is:
i. Does the Tribunal have jurisdiction under section 280 of the Insurance Act in this matter?
RESULT
6The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to grant the relief sought.
ANALYSIS
7The applicant submits that the Tribunal has exclusive jurisdiction under section 280 of the Insurance Act to adjudicate disputes regarding accident benefits, including the validity of settlements.
8The applicant submits that she is entitled to payment under the common law principles of contract and formation and performance, and that the respondent is legally obligated to fulfil the terms of the settlement agreement, including payment of the settlement funds. The applicant submits that the respondent has failed to pay the settlement amount as agreed, that this failure is subject to the Tribunal’s jurisdiction, and that the Tribunal has the authority to determine whether the funds should be paid.
9I agree with the applicant, the Tribunal does have jurisdiction over the validity/enforceability of settlement agreements. Here, however, she is not asking for the settlement to be rescinded, or to determine the validity of a settlement agreement. Nor does the applicant appear to be disputing that the settlement funds were issued to her representative in trust.
10The evidence shows that an executed settlement disclosure notice was provided to the respondent, and the settlement funds were paid to her representative, in trust. The applicant has not pointed me to any evidence that the settlement was invalid, or that she did not receive the funds. It appears that the applicant is asking the Tribunal to grant the equitable remedy of specific performance: in effect, to require the respondent to step into the shoes of her former lawyer, Mr. Duby, and pay the settlement funds twice. The applicant has not directed me to any authority to establish that the Tribunal has jurisdiction to order the respondent to pay the funds a second time due to the alleged dishonesty of her own lawyer.
11While I am empathetic to the applicant’s situation, I am not persuaded that the Tribunal has jurisdiction to grant the relief sought. The applicant may have recourse against her former counsel, through LawPRO, or through the Law Society compensation fund to recover the settlement monies she allegedly did not receive.
ORDER
12The application is dismissed. The Tribunal file will be closed.
Released: February 7, 2025
Kate Grieves
Adjudicator