A preliminary issues hearing was held to determine whether the claimant’s claim for IRBs was barred pursuant to s. 31(1)(a)(ii) of the SABS, which provides that an insurer is not required to pay an IRB if the claimant was driving an automobile without a valid driver’s licence. The claimant asserted that he was unaware at the time of the accident that his licence had been suspended for failure to pay a fine. The claimant submitted that the LAT should allow a defence of due diligence and grant relief against penalties and forfeiture under s. 98 of the Courts of Justice Act. Adjudicator Farlam held that the wording of s. 31(1)(a)(ii) does not provide for a defence of due diligence or any other defence or explanation including the driver’s knowledge that his licence was not valid. Adjudicator Farlam declined to impose a “knew or ought reasonably to have known” requirement upon s. 31(1)(a)(ii) given the clear, unambiguous, wording of the section, and given that a knowledge requirement is expressly provided for elsewhere in s. 31(1)(a). Adjudicator Farlam held that the LAT cannot grant relief under s. 98 of the Court of Justice Act. The claim for IRBs was barred.
