Court File and Parties

CITATION: Carpenter v. Intact Insurance Company and Licence Appeal Tribunal, 2025 ONSC 5817

DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 301/25 and 297/25 JR

DATE: 20251015

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE – ONTARIO

DIVISIONAL COURT

RE: Richard Carpenter, Appellant

AND:

Intact Insurance Company and Licence Appeal Tribunal, Respondents

BEFORE: Justice O’Brien

COUNSEL: No one appearing for the Appellant

Douglas Lee, Counsel for the Licencing Tribunal

Mikhail Shloznikov, Counsel for Intact Insurance

HEARD: October 10, 2025

case conference ENDORSEMENT

[1] This case conference was scheduled to discuss the scope of the Licence Appeal Tribunal’s participation in the appeal and companion judicial review from the Tribunal’s decision dated November 27, 2024 and the reconsideration decision dated March 24, 2025. The respondent, Mr. Carpenter, was walking on a public roadway when he was struck by a Caterpillar 930K wheel loader. The question before the Tribunal was whether Mr. Carpenter was involved in an “accident” as defined in the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule – Effective September 1, 20210, O. Reg. 34/10 (SABS). The Tribunal found that the Caterpillar was an “automobile” and that Mr. Carpenter was therefore involved in an “accident” as defined in the SABS. Intact Insurance Company appeals and seeks judicial review of the Tribunal decisions.

[2] Mr. Carpenter has not filed any materials nor indicated he intends to participate in the appeal/application. The Tribunal is entitled to participate in the application pursuant to s. 9(2) of the Judicial Review Procedure Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. J.1. In previous court directions, Shore J. granted the Tribunal standing to participate in the appeal. Because Mr. Carpenter is not participating in the appeal, the Tribunal is seeking leave to participate on a more substantive basis. Specifically, it seeks to make submissions directed at the statutory interpretation and procedural fairness issues to be determined on the appeal.

[3] Although the attendance before me was scheduled as a case conference, because there was no agreement between the parties, it proceeded with Intact and the Tribunal each making submissions on the appropriate scope of the Tribunal’s participation. Intact was opposed to the Tribunal participating on substantive issues, arguing that (1) the Tribunal’s decisions addressed a common law test and did not fall within an area of specialized expertise; (2) the Tribunal serves an adjudicative role, rather than a regulatory or investigative role, and this weighs against expanding its participation; and (3) it would be inappropriate for the Tribunal to make submissions defending the allegation of procedural unfairness.

[4] I have considered the factors set out in Children’s Lawyer for Ontario v. Goodis (2005), 2005 11786 (ON CA), 75 O.R. (3d) 309 (C.A.) and Ontario (Energy Board) v. Ontario Power Generation Inc., 2015 SCC 44. I conclude the Tribunal should be permitted to participate on all issues, though it should not take a position on the outcome of the issues, nor adopt an adversarial tone. I reach this conclusion for the following reasons:

A. I do not accept that the interpretive issue is only the application of a common law test outside of the Tribunal’s expertise. While the Tribunal considered the common law test for “automobile,” the cases it cited arose in the insurance context. Also, the ultimate question was whether Mr. Carpenter was involved in an “accident” as defined in the SABS. This case sufficiently engages the Tribunal’s specialized expertise that the court would benefit from the Tribunal’s expanded participation.

B. Without the Tribunal’s expanded participation, given Mr. Carpenter’s apparent intention not to participate in the appeal/application, the court would be left without any arguments countering those offered by Intact.

C. I have some concern about the Tribunal’s adjudicative role, especially in the context of the allegations of procedural unfairness. In my view, these concerns can be mitigated by the Tribunal taking a careful approach. Under this approach, the Tribunal is permitted to point the court to relevant cases and/or parts of the record. Unless the panel permits otherwise in oral argument, the Tribunal should not advocate for a particular outcome or conclusion arising from the information and context it provides.

[5] In reply submissions at the case conference, counsel for the Tribunal suggested for the first time that the court could appoint amicus curiae. This court rarely appoints amicus curiae. In the absence of a proper motion and full submissions on that issue, I decline to address it.

[6] The parties have agreed to a revised schedule for the exchange of materials. They shall comply with the following:

A. Appellant/applicant’s materials to be filed by November 21, 2025.

B. Respondents’ material to be filed by January 23, 2026.

[7] The December 3, 2025 hearing date is vacated. The hearing of the appeal/application shall be scheduled for a half day before a panel of three judges on March 4, 2026.

[8] Neither party suggested it was seeking costs at the case conference. No formal material was filed, and costs are rarely ordered following case conferences. No costs are ordered.

O’Brien J.

Released: October 15, 2025