Category: Divisional Court

Beaudin v. Travelers Insurance Company of Canada (2021 ONSC 1389)

The insurer appealed the Tribunal’s decision that the dirt bike involved in the accident was an automobile for the purposes of the SABS. The Tribunal had concluded that the dirt bike was required to be insured under the Off-Road Vehicles Act and was not exempt from insurance through the regulation that allowed off-road vehicles to be uninsured when “driven or exhibited at a closed course competition or rally sponsored by a motorcycle association.” The Court dismissed the appeal and confirmed that the dirt bike was considered an automobile. The Court agreed with the Tribunal’s approach to interpreting the ORVA as being for the protection of innocent victims of automobile accidents, and the narrow reading of the exemption to the ORVA.

Higashi v. Western Assurance Company (2020 ONSC 7616)

The claimant appealed the Tribunal’s decision that her claim for IRBs was barred by the limitation period. She argued that the insurer’s denials were invalid because the insurer did not provide copies of the IE reports to the practitioners who completed the Disability Certificates. The Court agreed with the Tribunal that the insurer’s failure to provide the IEs was not fatal to the limitation period. The insurer communicated all of the information required to the claimant to enable her to decide whether to dispute her entitlement.

The Personal Insurance Co. v. Jia (2020 ONSC 6361)

The insurer appealed the LAT’s decision that counsel acting in a priority matter could not also act in the LAT dispute, and the decision excluding the transcript from the priority EUO from the LAT hearing. The Court dismissed the appeal and concluded that the LAT’s decision was reasonable. It held that a conflict could arise if the same counsel acted in the priority dispute and at the LAT. It also reasoned that the protections of section 33 would not be followed if the priority EUO transcript was admitted without leave of the Tribunal.

Aviva Insurance Company of Canada v. J.A. (2021 ONSC 3185)

The insurer appealed the Tribunal’s decision that it was required to pay for the claimant’s catastrophic impairment assessments even though the assessments were not requested or completed until after submission of the OCF-19 and the catastrophic impairment IEs. The insurer characterized the requested assessments as rebuttal reports, which were not payable under the current version of the SABS. The Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Tribunal did not make an error of law. The Tribunal made a finding of fact that the claimant had not obtained any earlier assessments, so the requested assessments were not rebuttal assessments. As a matter of law, section 25 was to be interpreted broadly, and the term “preparation” of a catastrophic impairment application did not end when the OCF-19 was submitted. Therefore, section 25 applied and required the insurer to pay for the claimant’s catastrophic impairment assessments.

Aviva General Insurance v. Khan (2020 ONSC 1290)

The insurer sought judicial review of the Tribunal’s decision to award various medical benefits. The Court reviewed the Tribunal’s decision on a correctness standard and dismissed the appeal. It agreed with the insurer that a benefit could not be deemed incurred without a specific finding that the insurer unreasonably withheld or delayed payment of a benefit. However, the Court also wrote that the Tribunal’s decision made it clear that the benefit had been incurred because the services were provided and the claimant owed money to the treatment provider.

Allstate Insurance Company v. Billard (2019 ONSC 6256)

The insurer sought judicial review of the Tribunal’s decision that the limitation period should be extended based on section 7 of the LAT Act. The Divisional Court dismissed the review on the basis that the LAT proceeding needed to first be completed in its entirety before seeking judicial review.

Fordjour v. Royal and Sun Alliance Insurance Company of Canada (2019 ONSC 6268)

The claimant judicial review of the dismissal of her claim on two grounds: that she her family physician should be entitled to give opinion evidence, and that the adjudicator did not properly address causation. The Divisional Court agreed with the claimant and remitted the matter for a new hearing. It held that the Tribunal erred in not permitting the family physician to give opinion evidence at the hearing. The Divisional Court also wrote that the Tribunal had not set out the causation test it had applied, and that it was no appropriate for the test to be “implied.”

Hedley v. Aviva Insurance Company of Canada (2019 ONSC 5318)

Aviva sought reconsideration of the Tribunal’s reconsideration that its section 38 denial did not provide sufficient “medical and any other reasons for the examination,” and that the claimant was not required to attend the IE. The Court upheld the reconsideration decision as falling within the range of reasonableness. The Court wrote: “where reasons are required, they must be meaningful in order to permit the insured to decide whether or not to challenge the insurer’s determination. Mere ‘boilerplate’ statements do not provide a principled rationale to which an insured can respond. In essence, such statements constitute no reasons at all.”

Traders General Insurance Company v. Rumball (2019 ONSC 1412)

The insurer appealed the Tribunal’s decision that the claimant was not barred by the limitation period from seeking IRBs. The Court held that the appeal to Divisional Court was premature, and that the matter should proceed at the Tribunal regarding the claimant’s entitlement to IRBs. If IRBs were awarded, the insurer could then appeal the final decision of the Tribunal. The case was not a rare or exceptional case where the Court should consider an interim or interlocutory decision.

Intact Insurance Company v. Lanziner-Brackett (2018 ONSC 6546)

The insurer sought judicial review of the Tribunal’s decision that the claimant was involved in an accident, and also sought judicial review of the Case Conference adjudicator’s framing of the dispute. The claimant had been struck by the door of a vehicle twice, and then physically assaulted by the driver of the vehicle. The insurer had accepted that the door-related injuries qualified as an “accident,” but that the punches to the face did not. The adjudicator concluded that the whole incident was an “accident.” The Court concluded that the Tribunal’s decision was unreasonable and sent the matter back to the Tribunal for a new hearing. The Court explained that the Case Conference adjudicator’s reframing of the issue in dispute denied the insurer procedural fairness. The Court did not address whether the facts of loss qualified as an “accident.”