The applicant sought judicial review of a Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) decision denying her catastrophic impairment benefits.
After the decision, the applicant received an anonymous letter alleging the LAT's executive chair had changed the adjudicator's decision.
Evidence revealed the LAT had an unwritten peer review process where the executive chair reviewed draft decisions.
The Divisional Court held that this process breached the rules of adjudicative independence because consultation was imposed by a superior level of authority rather than requested by the adjudicator.
The decision was set aside and remitted for a new hearing.
