5 total
Appeal of official plan amendment dismissed because appellant failed to make prior submissions to municipal council.
The Six Nations of the Grand River Band of Indians appealed the Minister's approval of an Official Plan Amendment (OPA 45) for lands in Kitchener.
The Tribunal initiated a motion to determine the validity of the appeal because the Six Nations had not made oral or written submissions to City Council prior to the OPA's adoption, as required by s. 17(36) of the Planning Act.
The Six Nations argued that the Minister failed to discharge the constitutional duty to consult and that the Tribunal should interpret the appeal provisions liberally.
The Tribunal found that the statutory requirement under s. 17(36) is clear and non-discretionary.
Because the Six Nations did not make the required submissions to Council, they lacked standing to appeal.
The appeal was dismissed.
Appeal dismissed; insurer not required to provide commuted value for accident benefits that were never claimed.
The appellant sought to rescind a 2000 settlement agreement for statutory accident benefits, arguing the insurer failed to comply with disclosure obligations under Regulation 664 by not providing a commuted value for Attendant Care Benefits.
The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the rescission claim, finding the insurer was not required to provide a commuted value for benefits that were never claimed.
On appeal and judicial review, the Divisional Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, concluding it was not an error of law or unreasonable to find the settlement valid where the missing commuted value was for an unclaimed benefit and could not have reasonably affected the decision to settle.
LAT erred in denying special award jurisdiction for settled benefits and breached procedural fairness regarding expert evidence.
The appellant appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) decision denying her catastrophic impairment designation and a special award under s. 10 of Regulation 664.
The Divisional Court found the LAT erred in law by concluding it lacked jurisdiction to make a special award for benefits the insurer had delayed but ultimately agreed to pay before the hearing.
The Court also held the LAT breached procedural fairness by admitting and relying on the report of the insurer's psychiatric expert, who refused to attend the hearing for cross-examination.
The appeal was allowed, and the matter was remitted to a differently constituted tribunal.
LAT decision denying accident benefits quashed due to unreasonable expert evidence analysis and flawed causation test application.
The appellant sought statutory accident benefits after suffering a spinal cord hemorrhage and paraplegia following a stressful incident involving aggressive driving by motorcyclists and her driver.
The Licence Appeal Tribunal denied benefits, finding the incident did not meet the causation test for an 'accident' under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.
On appeal and judicial review, the Divisional Court quashed the decision, finding the Tribunal's analysis of the expert medical evidence unreasonable and its application of the intervening cause and dominant feature tests legally flawed.
The matter was remitted for a fresh hearing.
Appeal from LAT dismissed; Tribunal reasonably rejected expert opinion on catastrophic impairment after expert recanted.
The appellant appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision finding he did not suffer a catastrophic impairment from a 2016 motor vehicle accident.
The appellant argued the Tribunal erred in its treatment of expert and lay evidence, relied on hearsay, and misapplied the causation test.
The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Tribunal reasonably rejected the appellant's expert evidence after the expert recanted his opinion upon being presented with contradictory medical and benefits records.
The court also held that hearsay evidence is admissible before the Tribunal and the causation test was properly applied.
