REASONS FOR DECISION

G. DOW, J.

[1] This application, issued January 14, 2026, arises out of production issues between the parties.

[2] Counsel appeared on behalf of the Canada Revenue Agency today and was advised by counsel for the applicant no relief was being sought as against his client. Therefore, counsel was permitted to retire.

[3] I reserved this decision to make clear why this Application was inappropriate and drafted these reasons immediately after the hearing. Unfortunately, they were misplaced and this was not discovered until now. I regret the delay.

[4] The parties are currently before the License Appeal Tribunal following the respondent’s involvement in a motor vehicle accident on December 6, 2018 and subsequent denial of additional Statutory Automobile Accident benefits by the applicant. That application was commenced May 1, 2025 and was scheduled to proceed to a hearing commencing March 23, 2026.

[5] A Case Conference was held on August 21, 2025 at which time the parties agreed to production of various hospital, medical, treatment, pharmacy, financial, police and employment records within the next thirty days, all of whom are identified as non-parties in this application (amended Case Conference Report and Order, Exhibit H to the affidavit of Sherilyn Pickering sworn February 12, 2026).

[6] A further Case Conference was held on November 12, 2025 requesting production of the sought after records which was denied given the existence of the previous order making the order sought “duplicative and redundant”.

[7] In the reasons it states:

The Tribunal’s production order from the CCRO continues in force and requires no sequel. Parties fail to comply with such orders at their own risk. The proper forum to address non-compliance is at the hearing, where a hearing adjudicator can provide appropriate relief. Such remedies may include attaching diminished wait to late-produced evidence or drawing an adverse inference from a party’s failure to produce records. It is open to the hearing adjudicator to consider the merits of the case based on the available evidence, and the parties can make submissions at that time as to how the evidence should be weighed in light of any non-compliance” (Motion Order, paragraph 9, Exhibit M to evidence of Sherilyn Pickering sworn February 12, 2026).

[8] Production of the requested records has not been forthcoming and the applicant seeks an order from this Court compelling such production. Th evidence from counsel for the applicant is that the requested records are required in “adequate time to review same so as not to be prejudiced” (paragraph 6 of affidavit of Darrell March, sworn February 9, 2026).

[9] I agree with the reasons contained in the Motion Order and decline to make the order requested. The application is dismissed.

[10] I am reinforced in this conclusion by review of Section 280 of the Insurance Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.I.8, amended which gives exclusive jurisdiction over disputes for Statutory Automobile Accident Benefits to the License Appeal Tribunal. This principle was set out in Stegenga v. Economical Mutual Insurance Company, 2019 ONCA 615 at paragraphs 6 and 45. It was repeated and refined in the Divisional Court, Aviva Insurance Company of Canada v. Danay Suarez, 2021 ONSC 6200 at paragraphs 26-28. It was repeated in Yang v. Co-operators General Insurance Company, 2022 ONCA 178 at paragraph 4 and again by the Divisional Court in Singh v. Wawanesa Mutual Insurance Company, 2022 ONSC 3361 at paragraphs 43 and 44.

Costs

[11] Counsel for the applicant did not provide a copy of Costs Outline as required under Rule 57.01 (6) on the basis it was not seeking costs. Counsel for the respondent provided a Costs Outline claiming partial indemnity fees of $2,788.28, inclusive of HST which increased to $4182.41 at substantial indemnity rates. Given the repeated authorities indicating this application was inappropriate and the discretion afforded under Section 131 of the Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O.1990, c.C.43, I award the respondent its substantial indemnity costs as claimed in the amount of $4,182.41, inclusive of HST, payable forthwith. I am reinforced in my conclusion by review of the time and hourly rates claimed which appear reasonable and the relatively short amount of time provided to respond to this application.

Mr. Justice G. Dow

Released: May 13, 2025

CITATION: Intact Insurance Company v. Ronda Crevits, 2026 ONSC 2801

COURT FILE NO. CV-26-00000869-0000

DATE: 2026-05-13

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

BETWEEN:

Intact Insurance Company

Applicant

– and –

Ronda Crevits

Respondent

REASONS FOR DECISION

Mr. Justice G. Dow

Released: May 13, 2026