Court File and Parties

CITATION: Landa v. Dominion of Canada General Insurance Co., 2021 ONSC 7670

DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 498/21

DATE: 20211119

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE – ONTARIO

DIVISIONAL COURT

RE: MARINA LANDA, Applicant/Moving Party

AND: THE DOMINION OF CANADA GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Respondent

BEFORE: Nishikawa J.

COUNSEL: Marina Landa, in person Valerie Crystal, for the Licence Appeal Tribunal Chris McCormack, for Dominion of Canada General Insurance Company

HEARD at Toronto: November 19, 2021

ENDORSEMENT

[1] The Moving Party, Marina Landa, brings a motion for an extension of time to file her application for judicial review of the decision of the Licence Appeal Tribunal dated October 21, 2020 and the reconsideration decision dated December 23, 2020 (together, the “Decisions”).

[2] The Respondent, the Dominion of Canada General Insurance Company (“Dominion”) advised at the hearing that it did not oppose the motion.

[3] The Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) takes no position on the question of whether an extension of time should be granted in the circumstances. The LAT also acknowledged that subsequent to the Decisions, this court found that the LAT has jurisdiction to extend time under the relevant statutory provision: Fratarcangeli v. North Bleinheim Mutual Insurance Company, 2021 ONSC 3997 (Div. Ct.) Counsel for the LAT submits, however, that the proper procedure for challenging the LAT’s decisions on a question of law is by way of appeal under s. 11(1) of the Licence Appeal Tribunal Act. Judicial review on questions of mixed fact and law are permitted only in exceptional circumstances, if at all.

[4] Given the absence of opposition and s. 11(1) of the Licence Appeal Tribunal Act, at the hearing, I also proposed that the matter proceed by case conference and sought to clarify with the Applicant whether she would seek to proceed by way of statutory appeal as opposed to the application for judicial review.

[5] The Applicant submitted that she initially chose to proceed by way of judicial review because a statutory appeal is limited to questions of law. It was apparent from the Applicant’s submissions that she was not prepared to agree to proceed by statutory appeal instead of the judicial review application. However, the Applicant indicated that she would need more time to decide how to proceed. As a result, the motion was adjourned.

[6] Under the circumstances, rather than to simply reschedule the motion, it would be beneficial to have a case conference. A case conference is scheduled before me on December 21, 2020 at 9 a.m., by teleconference. The Applicant shall advise at that time how she intends to proceed.

Nishikawa J.

Date: November 19, 2021