Court File and Parties

CITATION: Grewal v. Peel Mutual Insurance Company, 2024 ONSC 2085

DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 542/23

DATE: 20240410

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE – ONTARIO

DIVISIONAL COURT

RE: HARPREET GREWAL, Appellant

AND:

PEEL MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY and LICENCE APPEAL TRIBUNAL, Respondents

BEFORE: D. L. Corbett, Myers and Shore JJ.

COUNSEL: Imtiaz Hossein and Delaney McCartan, for the Appellant

Jonathan Schrieder, for the Respondent Peel Mutual Insurance Company

Valerie Crystal and Jesse Boyce, for the Licence Appeal Tribunal

HEARD in Toronto: January 10, 2024

ENDORSEMENT

[1] This is an appeal from the decision of Adjudicator Kevin Lundy dated August 25, 2023 declining to add a claim for punitive damages to the issues in dispute before the LAT in connection with the Appellant’s claims to benefits pursuant to the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule (the SABS”).

[2] Precisely the same legal issue was raised in a prior appeal from the LAT (Keulen v. Allstate Insurance Company) and this court’s decision in Keulen was under reserve at the time that this appeal was argued. This court’s decision in Keulen was released on April 8, 2024: 2024 ONSC 2033.

[3] I would note that the primary argument advanced by the Appellant in this case focuses on a transfer of “jurisdiction” from the Superior Court to the LAT. As explained in Keulen, exclusive jurisdiction over SABS claims has been removed from the Superior Court of Justice and the Financial Services Commission of Ontario and has been placed in the LAT. This is the effect of the language in s. 280 of the Insurance Act. The authority granted to the LAT is circumscribed by the Insurance Act, the SABS and the applicable regulations. The LAT has no inherent jurisdiction.

[4] The LAT has not been granted authority to award punitive damages; it has been granted authority to deem benefits incurred, to make a “special award”, and to award interest and/or costs, all remedies that may be used to respond to insurer misconduct. There is nothing unclear or ambiguous about these provisions.

[5] The parties to this appeal had a full opportunity to address the issues raised by this appeal, and no purpose would be served seeking further submissions in light of this court’s decision in Keulen.

[6] For the reasons expressed in Keulen and in this endorsement, this appeal is dismissed, with costs payable by the Appellant to the Respondent Peel Mutual in the agreed amount of $10,000, inclusive, payable within thirty days. There shall be no costs for or against the LAT.

“D.L. Corbett J.”

I agree: “Myers J.”

I agree: “Shore J.”

Date: April 10, 2024