CITATION: Plante v. Economical Insurance Company, 2024 ONSC 7171

DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: DC-23-2810-0000

DATE: 20241220

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

DIVISIONAL COURT

R.S.J. Edwards, F. Myers and B. MacNeil JJ.

BETWEEN:

SHANNON PLANTE, by her litigation guardian JADEN BAILEY

Applicant

– and –

ECONOMICAL INSURANCE COMPANY

Respondent

Joseph Y. Obagi, for the Appellant

Martin Forget, for the Respondent

HEARD at Ottawa: September 11, 2024

REASONS FOR DECISION

m.l. edwards r.s.j.

Overview

[1] The Licence Appeal Tribunal (the “LAT”) is an independent, quasi-judicial agency. It hears claims under numerous statutes. The LAT adjudicates a very large number of applications and resolves disputes concerning compensation claims for people who have been involved in motor vehicle accidents. Claims decided by the LAT may be monetarily small. They may be monetarily large. They are all important to the litigants. They must be decided fairly regardless of the monetary amounts at issue.

[2] A quasi-judicial tribunal is required to adhere to principles of natural justice and procedural fairness. If a tribunal like the LAT fails to accord litigants with a procedurally fair hearing, decisions rendered will be set aside. No deference is accorded to a decision that fails to accord with the principles of natural justice and procedural fairness. These reasons explain why the Appellant was not afforded a fair hearing and why this matter must return to the LAT for a new hearing.

The Appeal

[3] The Appellant, Shannon Plante, appeals from two decisions of the LAT. In the first decision, dated June 28, 2023, LAT Vice Chair Tyler Moore (VC Moore) determined that the Appellant was entitled to supervised aqua therapy and psychological treatment and interest for those therapies, but not entitled to other benefits which included: attendant care benefits, a four-wheel scooter, a power lift chair, home modifications, rent, and occupational therapy. Throughout these reasons I will collectively refer to what was claimed by the Appellant as the “benefits claimed.”

[4] In the second decision, dated October 13, 2013, VC Moore dismissed the Appellant’s request for reconsideration. The Appellant argues that VC Moore denied the Appellant procedural fairness and made errors of law in these decisions.

[5] If this Court determines that the errors identified by the Appellant are not errors of law, but instead involve questions of fact or mixed fact and law, the Appellant seeks judicial review of the decisions. The Appellant argues that VC Moore’s decisions were unreasonable and should not be allowed to stand.

[6] On appeal and on the application for judicial review, the Appellant