Court File and Parties

CITATION: Said v. Northbridge General Insurance Company, 2024 ONSC 5248

DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 502/23

DATE: 20240925

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE – ONTARIO

DIVISIONAL COURT

RE: ROSHAN SAID, Appellant

AND: NORTHBRIDGE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Respondent

BEFORE: Backhouse, D.L. Corbett, Stothart, JJ.

COUNSEL: Shahram Bahmadi, for the Appellant

Jennifer McGlashan, for the Respondent

HEARD: September 16, 2024

Endorsement

D.L. Corbett J. (Orally)

[1] This is an appeal from the decisions of Adjudicator Kaur, dated August 1, 2023, of the License Appeal Tribunal (“LAT”), dismissing the Appellant’s claims for income replacement benefits and related claims (2023 122911 (ON LAT)) and denying the Appellant’s request for reconsideration (2023 122911 (ON LAT). The Adjudicator dismissed the claims on the basis that they were precluded by principles of res judicata, given the prior LAT decision of Adjudicator Lake dated October 15, 2021 (2020 122073).

[2] This court has jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to s. 11(1) and (6) of the Licence Appeal Tribunal Act, 1999, SO 1999, c. 12, Sched. G, on a question of law. The standard of review for questions of law is correctness: Housen v. Nikolaisen, 2002 SCC 33, para. 8.

[3] Before this court, the Appellant argues that res judicata does not apply to preclude his current claims, and that the process followed below was procedurally unfair. The Appellant’s arguments on the merits misconceive the doctrine of res judicata. The test for res judicata was applied by the Adjudicator as follows (Decision, para. 12):

In my view, the four preconditions for res judicata are satisfied. The parties are the same in both proceedings. The prior claim was within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. The decision in the first application was based on the merits. The Tribunal reviewed the submissions and evidence and found that the applicant was not entitled to the IRB or found that the applicant was not entitled to IRBs for the period of January 14, 2020 to date and ongoing. Moreover, he was not entitled to payment for the November 9, 2019 accounting report. The first decision was a final decision because he did not file a reconsideration request and nor did he appeal the decision.”

See Danyluk v. Ainsworth Technologies Inc., 2001 SCC 44.

[4] The Appellant argues that the issue before the LAT in the first proceeding was the quantum of benefits to which the Appellant was entitled, and not the question of whether the Appellant was entitled to any benefits at all. Put another way, the Appellant argues that the issue was quantum and not liability. The Appellant argues that the decision was made without jurisdiction because there was no “dispute” between the parties on the issue of liability, within the meaning of s. 218 of the Insurance Act.

[5] A LAT decision is final and authoritative, subject to a party’s rights of reconsideration or appeal from that decision. A party that disagrees with a LAT decision may not ignore that decision and recommence the same claims all over again. That is what the Appellant has done in this case. Even if the LAT erred in the first decision and decided the case on the basis of an issue that was not before it, that error would not have deprived the LAT of jurisdiction. The LAT’s second decision is correct in law; this appeal fails on the merits.

[6] We see no procedural unfairness in the process followed below to adjudicate the preliminary issue of res judicata. This was an appropriate case in which to decide such an issue, which turns on a reading of the first decision and of the claims asserted in the second proceeding. Further, as just explained, the LAT’s decision on the res judicata issue was correct, and thus the process followed by the LAT worked no prejudice to the Appellant.

[7] The appeal is dismissed, with costs to the respondent insurer fixed at $2,500.00, inclusive, payable within thirty days. There shall be no costs for or against the LAT.

“D.L. Corbett J.”

I agree: “Backhouse J.”

I agree: “Stothart J.”

Released Orally: September 16, 2024

Written Endorsement Released: September 25, 2024