Since 2016, Ontario’s Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) has adjudicated the Automobile Accident Benefits Service (AABS). In the past, we have noted tribunals’ track records apparently favoring auto insurers.

In 2010, Ummugulsum Yatar was injured in a motor vehicle accident (MVA) and unable to work. She received income replacement benefits plus housekeeping and home maintenance benefits from her insurer, TD Insurance, but the insurer stopped all payments in 2011.

To challenge the denial of her benefits, Ms. Yatar brought an application before LAT but was unsuccessful. Her request for reconsideration of that LAT decision was also dismissed.

Ms. Yatar then brought an appeal on questions of law and an application for judicial review of the LAT reconsideration decision before the Divisional Court, which also dismissed both the appeal and the application. The case was elevated further to the Court of Appeal for Ontario, which also dismissed Ms. Yatar’s appeal.

In March 2024 the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the lower courts erred in their decisions. The judges wrote: “The appeal should be allowed, and the matter remitted to the LAT adjudicator.

“It was an error for the courts below to hold that, where there is a limited right of appeal, judicial review should only be exercised in exceptional or rare cases. The limited right of appeal from LAT decisions to pure questions of law does not reflect an intention by the legislature to restrict recourse to the courts on other questions arising from the LAT’s administrative decision.

“The legislative decision to provide for a right of appeal on questions of law only denotes an intention to subject LAT decisions on questions of law to correctness review, and proceeding with judicial review on questions of fact or mixed fact and law is fully respectful of the legislature’s institutional design choices.

“Furthermore, the LAT adjudicator’s reconsideration decision was unreasonable, as he failed to take into account relevant legal constraints. The matter should be referred back to the LAT adjudicator for reconsideration.”

The Supreme Court also ruled that Ms. Yatar be awarded her costs in the courts, payable by TD Insurance. Link to the Supreme Court decision