Citation and Court Information
CITATION: Tyner v. Certas Insurance 2023 ONSC 5179
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: DC-23-00002802-0000
DATE: 2023/09/13
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
DIVISIONAL COURT
McCarthy, Sheard and Schabas JJ.
BETWEEN:
Patricia Tyner
Appellant
– and –
Certas Home and Auto Insurance Company
Respondent
Warren WhiteKnight for the Appellant
Alexander V. Dos Reis for the Respondent
HEARD at Ottawa (by videoconference): September 13, 2023
BY THE COURT
REASONS FOR DECISION
[1] The Appellant, Patricia Tyner, appeals the Decision and Order of Jeremy A. Roberts, Vice-Chair, and Terry Prowse, Adjudicator, of the Licence Appeal Tribunal (the “LAT”) dated May 17, 2023, and amended on June 6, 2023 (the “Decision”).
[2] On June 6, 2023, the Appellant filed a Request for Reconsideration of the Decision pursuant to Rule 18.2(b) of the Common Rules of Practice and Procedure. The LAT has not yet released its Reconsideration decision.
[3] The Respondent, Certas Home and Auto Insurance Company (“Certas”), raises a preliminary objection to this Appeal. Certas submits that the LAT has not released its Reconsideration decision and, as such, the Decision is not a final decision, and this court does not have jurisdiction to hear an appeal from an interlocutory order.
[4] We agree.
[5] The issue of this court’s jurisdiction to hear an appeal from an interlocutory order of the LAT was comprehensively addressed by this court in Penney v. The Co-operators General Insurance Company, 2022 ONSC 3874, in which the Court concluded that it lacked jurisdiction.
[6] The Court’s conclusion is explained at para. 26:
[26] Given the language of s. 11(1) and (6) of the LAT Act, read in the context of the entire statute and the objective of preventing fragmentation of and delay in administrative proceedings, I conclude that this Court has no jurisdiction to hear an appeal from an interlocutory decision of the LAT. In my view, this conclusion is consistent with the instruction from the Supreme Court of Canada in Vavilov v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2019 SCC 65 that the courts should respect the Legislature’s decisions with respect to institutional design (at paras. 24, 26). Here, the Legislature chose not to confer a right to appeal interlocutory decisions of the LAT to the Divisional Court.
[7] We agree with and adopt the reasoning set out above.
[8] On this hearing, counsel for the parties submitted that the case law and the LAT Guidelines published on the TribunalsOntario.ca website led to a lack of clarity as to when the time for appeal begins to run, and invited this court to address that issue.
[9] As per Penny, the time for appeal runs from the date of the LAT’s final order which, in this case, will be when the LAT releases its decision on the Reconsideration request.
Disposition
[10] For the reasons given, this appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
[11] In the circumstances, no costs are awarded.
J. R. McCarthy J.
Sheard J.
Schabas J.
Released: September 13, 202
CITATION: Tyner v. Certas Insurance 2023 ONSC 5179
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: DC-23-00002802-0000
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
DIVISIONAL COURT
MCCAARTHY, SHEARD and SCHABAS JJ.
BETWEEN:
TYNER
Appellant
- and –
CERTAS HOME AND AUTO INSURANCE COMPANY
Respondent
REASONS FOR DECISION
BY THE COURT
Released: September 13, 2023