Latest News Articles

[1]               In 2016, the legislature transferred jurisdiction under the Insurance Act dealing with statutory accident benefits to the Licence Appeal Tribunal. Counsel for the Tribunal confirms that there is another case before the Divisional Court in which an unopposed order was made that the Tribunal would participate on the issue of standard of review but this appears to be the first judicial review application that has reached this stage since the Licence Appeal Tribunal acquired the jurisdiction.

[2]               In this Application for Judicial Review, counsel for the applicant has brought this motion for an immediate order of prohibition under s. 4 of the Judicial Review Procedures Act (the “JRPA”) staying the Licence Appeal Tribunal proceeding number 16-00364/AABS pending judicial review of two decisions of the Licence Appeal Tribunal in which Aviva’s requests to adjourn a hearing on the determination of a legal issue were denied.  For the reasons that follow, the motion is dismissed.

[16]           As indicated during submissions, I consider that the content of the identical letters dated March 8 and March 10 is “odd”.  Neither has a signature.  There is no indication what is meant by “the Tribunal”. Is it the Executive Chair?  Is it the adjudicator who conducted the case conference on January 30?   Is it the adjudicator assigned to the in-writing hearing on March 15?  Is it someone else?  Is it the Case Management Officer? There is no indication as to why the adjournment was not granted except that the detailed reasons contained in the two written requests were “insufficient”.  By making this observation about oddness, I am mindful that the need for and sufficiency of reasons is a relative issue and I do not hold that reasons were necessarily required.

[17]           I deal first with the motion to stay.  Counsel argues that it is a serious issue that Aviva was denied the right to know why the adjournment was refused, and because the adjournment was refused, Aviva argues that it was denied the right to know the case it is required to meet in the in-writing proceeding.

[18]           Counsel argues that Aviva will suffer irreparable harm because if the stay is not granted until the judicial review is heard, the Tribunal will not have the comprehensive record it should have in order to make the important threshold decision as to whether Mr. Taylor was involved in an “automobile accident” and is therefore entitled to accident benefits. Without the adjournment and the cross-examination, counsel argues that the Tribunal will not be able to make an informed decision on an important coverage issue, the consequences of which could require Aviva to pay millions of dollars. Counsel also argues that the balance of convenience favours Aviva because, if ordered to resume making significant payments, those payments will likely not be recoverable should an appeal be successful.