The claimant appealed the Tribunal’s decision that he was not involved in an accident. The Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Tribunal’s reasons had no error of law, and that the claimant’s appeal was largely an attempt to relitigate the factual issues that were before the adjudicator.
The claimant appealed the Tribunal’s denial of a special award related to IRBs which were reinstated after the post-104 week mark following further medical assessments. The Court dismissed the appeal, holding that it did not raise an issue of law. The Tribunal’s determination regarding the special award were factual in nature, and the Tribunal applied the proper legal test in deciding whether a special award was warranted.
The claimant appealed the LAT’s decision that the limitation period barred the application. The Court allowed the appeal and remitted the matter to the Tribunal for a new hearing. The Court found the Tribunal erred in concluding that the denial letter was received on the day it was authored, as no evidence was before the Tribunal to prove the date of receipt. The Court also held the Tribunal erred in putting the onus on the claimant to refute the date the insurer alleged the denial letter was received by the claimant in the mail.
The claimant appealed the LAT’s dismissal of his catastrophic impairment dispute, arguing that the Tribunal’s supplemental reasons contained in the reconsideration decision violated the principles of fairness. The Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the SPPA gave the Tribunal the power to make rules to reconsider its own decision, and that the reconsideration process gave the Tribunal the ability to dismiss, confirm, vary, or cancel any part of its original decision or order. The Tribunal’s procedure in the subject matter followed the reconsideration process contemplated by the SPPA and the Tribunal’s own rules. The Tribunal acted entirely within its own jurisdiction on the reconsideration.
The claimant sought a stay from Divisional Court of the LAT’s decision that the dispute would proceed in writing rather than orally. The Court rejected the stay, holding that there was not a serious issue, there was no irreparable harm if the stay was not granted, and the balance of convenience did not favour the claimant given the prematurity of the decision. The Court wrote that if, at the end of the Tribunal’s process, the claimant wished to dispute the fairness of the hearing, he could do so at that time.
The insurer appealed the Tribunal’s decision that the settlement between the insurer was valid and enforceable. The claimant died 10 days after settling her tort and AB claims for $957,000, with 60 percent to be structured. The 60 percent was returned to the insurer based on the reversion; however, the claimant’s estate took the position it was entitled to keep the 40 percent. The insurer disagreed, and argued that there was no valid settlement because the claimant died prior to agreement on the structure percentage. The Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Tribunal applied the correct legal test. Further, the Court wrote that the claimant’s lawyer had authority to negotiate the settlement, and the executor of the estate could execute the agreement by signing the necessary documents.
The claimant appealed the Tribunal’s decision denying an adjournment of a scheduled hearing. The Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the denial of the adjournment was an interlocutory step from which no appeal was permitted. The Court also declined to grant a stay of the proceedings.
The claimant appealed and sought judicial review of the Tribunal’s decision to dismiss her application due to non-attendance at an IE. The Court dismissed the appeal and judicial review, holding that the Tribunal properly considered the SABS and the materials before it, and the result was a reasonable outcome available to the Tribunal under the SABS. The claimant failed to prove that she was not afforded procedural fairness in the hearing.
The claimant appealed the Tribunal’s decision that she was not entitled to various medical benefits. The claimant argued that the Tribunal’s refusal to convert the videoconference hearing to a written hearing was a breach of procedural fairness and natural justice. The claimant’s counsel had argued that the claimant was unable to participate in the hearing due to psychological injuries, but provided no evidence in support of the motion. The Tribunal rejected the motion and the matter proceeded by videoconference, and the claimant called no evidence. The Court rejected the appeal, holding that the Tribunal’s processes were fair and the decision to proceed with the videoconference was not a breach of procedural fairness or natural justice. The claimant was given the opportunity to make submissions on the motion and the Tribunal provided written reasons for its decision. The Court also rejected the argument that the adjudicator was biased.
The claimant appealed the Tribunal’s decision dismissing her claim for IRBs. The Court dismissed the appeal holding that there was no extricable question of law. The Court also rejected the arguments that the Tribunal process lacked procedural fairness or that the Tribunal did not apply the correct test for causation.
150 York Street, Suite 1800
Toronto, Ontario M5H 3S5
416.507.1850
© 2020 Thomas Gold Pettingill LLP Disclaimer | Privacy Policy | Statement of Principles
Subscribe to get TGP’s case summaries straight to your inbox
Subscribe to get TGP’s case summaries straight to your inbox
150 York Street, Suite 1800
Toronto, Ontario M5H 3S5
416.507.1850
© 2020 Thomas Gold Pettingill LLP