|
Fairness - As Legal Error. Sorrentino v. Certas Home and Auto Insurance Company
In Sorrentino v. Certas Home and Auto Insurance Company (Ont Div Ct, 2026) the Ontario Divisional Court allowed an insured's LAT SABS appeal, this involving "the legal obligation of the respondent insurer, Certas Home and Auto Insurance (“Certas”), to pay for home modifications to accommodate her needs after a motor vehicle accident" [OCF-18 'Treatment and Assessment Plan'].
Here the court holds that breaches of procedural fairness can also constitute errors of law:Procedural Fairness
[51] The Supreme Court established in Law Society of Saskatchewan v. Abrametz, 2022 SCC 29 at para. 27 that procedural fairness in a proceeding is a question of law. The characteristics of procedural fairness are non-exhaustive. Those characteristics that serve as the hallmarks of procedural fairness were identified by the Supreme Court in Baker v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 1999 CanLII 699 (SCC), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 817 at paras. 22-27 as follows:(a) The nature of the decision being made, and the process followed in making it;
(b) The nature of the statutory scheme and the terms of the statute pursuant to which that body operates;
(c) The importance of the decision to the individual affected;
(d) The legitimate expectations of the person challenging the decision; and
(e) The choices of procedure made by the deciding body itself. [52] The procedural fairness provided during a hearing has also been held to be a question of law. In Plante v. Economical, Insurance Company, 2024 ONSC 7171, the Divisional Court allowed an appeal of a decision of the LAT where the LAT did not provide the applicant with a meaningful opportunity to present her case. The shortcomings found by the court included the refusal to allow key witnesses to testify, curtailing the length of the hearing and relying on untested expert evidence.
|
