CITATION: Fratarcangeli v. North Blenheim Mutual Insurance Company, 2020 ONSC 7640
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: DC-317-19 DC-429/19 DC-532/19
Tribunal File Numbers: 16-002336/AABS 16-002606/AABS 18-002989/AABS 18-001196/AABS
DATE: 20201218
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE – ONTARIO
DIVISIONAL COURT
RE: ALDO FRATARCANGELI and NICOLE LADOUCEUR, Applicants (Respondents in Appeal)
AND:
NORTH BLENHEIM MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Respondents (Appellants)
AND BETWEEN:
LEONARD REARDON, Applicant (Respondent in Appeal)
AND:
ROYAL & SUN ALLIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY OF CANADA, Respondent (Appellant)
AND BETWEEN:
SALEH SHEWAY, Appellant
AND:
CERTAS HOME AND AUTO INSURANCE COMPANY, Respondent
BEFORE: Lederer, Penny, Sheard JJ.
COUNSEL: Richard Shaheen and Rebecca Pepper, for the Appellant North Blenheim Insurance Company Lora Castellucci, for the Appellant Royal & Sun Alliance Insurance Company of Canada Sandi Smith, for the Appellant Saleh Sheway Peter Cimino, for the Respondents Aldo Fratarcangeli and Nicole Ladouceur Sylvia Guirguis and Nathan Tischler, for the Respondent Leonard Reardon K. Watson and Rose Bilash, for the Respondent Certas Home and Auto Insurance Company
HEARD at Toronto: December 8, 2020
ENDORSEMENT
[1] These three matters were scheduled to be heard consecutively: the first two (North Blenheim and Royal & Sun Alliance) on December 8, 2020 and the third (Sheway) on December 9, 2020.
[2] They raise the same preliminary issue being whether s. 7 of the Licence Appeal Tribunal Act (S.O. 1999, c. 12 Sched. G) (the "Act") applies such that the Licence Appeal Tribunal ("LAT") has the jurisdiction to extend the two-year time limit set to bring an application to the LAT to resolve a dispute in respect of the insured person's entitlement to, or the amount of, statutory benefits under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule (O. Reg. 34/10).
[3] At the outset of the proceeding counsel were asked and advised the Court that the LAT had indicated that it did not intend to appear and make representations at the hearing of these proceedings.
[4] The LAT has made conflicting decisions regarding the issue of its jurisdiction. In some cases, it has assumed jurisdiction (the issue was not raised). In the Sheway case, it found it did not have the jurisdiction to extend the time limit of concern. Jurisdiction is one area where administrative tribunals are, generally, permitted to appear in appeals taken from their decisions. They have a particular understanding of their purpose and responsibilities, the parameters within which they function and the legislation, regulations and rules that govern their actions.
[5] We think it important that the LAT appear to assist the Court in this matter. It would be unfortunate if the Court were to make a decision which, in the absence of this assistance, through its lack of appreciation of the circumstances and the LAT's understanding of the applicable legislation, regulations and rules, would unnecessarily cause difficulties that might otherwise be avoided.
[6] Accordingly, the following orders are made:
Through the delivery of this Endorsement the LAT be advised of the Court's view that its participation in the Court's consideration of its jurisdiction under s. 7 of the Act is necessary. This request to LAT may be taken as the Court's order for leave to intervene on this issue.
That the LAT deliver to the parties and file with the Court any material on which it intends to rely, and a Factum outlining the submissions it intends to make, no later than ten days before the date set for the hearing of these matters as outlined herein. Counsel for the parties may address any issues raised by the LAT in oral submissions at the return of the appeals.
Any filing with the Court is to be made through the downloading into "Caselines" as directed by Court's then current direction and protocols.
The counsel for each of the parties are to determine three days between January 4, 2021 and February 26, 2021 when they can all be available for the hearing of these matters. The three dates are to be delivered to the Court as directed by the Court.
The Court will advise the parties of the date selected for the hearing.
In the circumstances there is no purpose and no need for submissions to be made advancing the idea that any of the three proceedings is premature.
Lederer J.
I agree _______________________________
Penny J.
I agree _______________________________
Sheard J.
Date: December 18, 2020