|
Insurance - Auto - Reconsiderations. Patton v. Aviva Insurance Co. of Canada
In Patton v. Aviva Insurance Co. of Canada (Ont Div Ct, 2025) the Ontario Divisional Court dismissed a SABS joint appeal-JR, here where the LAT "dismissed the application as outside the two-year limitation period and refused to exercise its discretion to extend the limitation period".
Here the court considers LAT reconsideration procedure:Issue 4: Did the LAT breach procedural fairness in the Reconsideration Decision by raising issues not raised by the parties?
[60] These issues raised by LAT on its own initiative were primarily in relation to new arguments raised by Mr. Patton that were not appropriate to raise on reconsideration. The LAT was obligated pursuant to r. 18.1 of the Licence Appeal Tribunal Rules to comply with specific criteria for granting reconsideration. It was required by r. 18.1 to reject any new arguments that could have been raised at the first instance hearing. The LAT made no error. . Miceli v. TD Insurance
In Miceli v. TD Insurance (Ont Divisional Ct, 2025) the Divisional Court allowed an appeal, this from a LAT SABS claim denial.
Here the court briefly considers the LAT reconsideration procedure:[14] In the Reconsideration Decision, the Tribunal identified that the test for reconsideration requires meeting a “high threshold”. As put by the Tribunal, it “is not an opportunity for a party to re-litigate its position where it disagrees with the Tribunal’s decision or with the weight assigned to the evidence”. . Adam v. Aviva General Insurance Company
In Adam v. Aviva General Insurance Company (Div Court, 2024) the Divisional Court dismissed an appeal of a LAT SABS decision "which found that she failed to demonstrate entitlement to post-104 week income replacement benefits (“IRBs”) pursuant to s.6(2) (b) of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule – Effective September 1, 2010 (“SABS”)".
Here the court held that new leading case law did not "constitute new evidence" for reconsideration purposes:Issue 1: Did LAT err in law in finding that new binding case law, Varriano v. Allstate Insurance Company of Canada (“Varriano”), 2023 ONCA 78, is not evidence for the purpose of a request for reconsideration under LAT Rule 18.2(d)?
[5] A new decision from a higher court does not constitute new evidence that can be relied upon for a reconsideration request: see Jhajj v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), 1995 CanLII 3583 (FC), [1995] 2 FC 369, where the court rejected a similar request for reconsideration because recognizing new jurisprudence as evidence could have the effect of (1) inundating lower courts with reconsideration requests (paras. 32-34), and (2) could subject settled cases to re-litigation, contrary to established legal principles (paras. 35-37).
|
