Yusra Murad

The Registrar of the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that set aside a proposal to refuse a cannabis retail manager licence to the respondent.

The Registrar had proposed to refuse the licence due to the respondent's past operation of illegal cannabis dispensaries and related criminal convictions.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the Tribunal did not err in law in applying the 'reasonable grounds to believe' standard of proof, nor did it make irrational inferences when concluding that the respondent's past transparency and subsequent conduct indicated she would comply with the law in the future.

The applicant sought a non-earner benefit following a motor vehicle accident in October 2014.

The respondent denied the claim, arguing that any inability to live a normal life was caused by a prior accident in September 2013.

The Tribunal applied the Heath framework and found that the applicant's lifestyle changes were attributable to the 2013 accident, as supported by independent medical examinations and the applicant's own examination under oath.

The application for a non-earner benefit was dismissed.

The applicant sought judicial review of a director's delegate's decision which overturned an arbitrator's finding that the applicant was not bound by the $3,500 limit for medical and rehabilitation benefits under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule (SABS).

The Divisional Court held that the director's delegate reasonably concluded that sections 14 and 18 of the SABS create limits on liability rather than exclusions, meaning the burden of proof remains on the insured.

However, the court found the director's delegate erred in concluding that the Minor Injury Guideline is entirely binding as if it were part of the SABS, holding instead that it is only incorporated by reference where expressly required for interpretation.

The application for judicial review was allowed and the matter remitted for a new preliminary issue hearing.

The insurer appealed an arbitrator's preliminary decision that the insured's medical and rehabilitation claim was not subject to the $3,500 limit under the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Director's Delegate allowed the appeal, finding that the arbitrator erred by failing to apply the correct test of whether the impairment was predominantly a minor injury, improperly shifting the burden of proof to the insurer, and incorrectly concluding that the MIG was non-binding.

Furthermore, the arbitrator breached procedural fairness by conducting independent research and relying on legal arguments without giving the parties an opportunity to respond.

The decision was rescinded and the matter remitted for a full hearing before a different arbitrator.