Print
 

 Volume. 6 Issue. 36 – September 14, 2022



‘You Knew There Was No Insurance’ involves the reconsideration of a decision where the Tribunal found it reasonable to conclude that the Applicant was unaware the motorcycle he was operating was uninsured. The Tribunal varied its original decision having found that the wrong test was applied.

In ‘Resolving a Conflict That Did Not Exist’ the Court weighs in on a situation wherein the Tribunal had been “surprised” that an issue regarding an apparent “ambiguity” in the Schedule had never been addressed, being a “genuine conflict in the Schedule as to whether EI sickness benefits can be deducted from an IRB”. Ultimately, the Court found for a fact that no such “ambiguity” existed.


Need help finding cases? Reach out to our Live Chat Experts for guided searches!



Applicant Well Aware He Had No Insurance

You Knew There Was No Insurance – Intact sought reconsideration of an earlier Tribunal decision, 19-009063 v Intact, in which the Applicant Vaillancourt was allowed to proceed with his claim for various benefits, as it had not been proven on a balance of probabilities that Vaillancourt knew or ought reasonably to have known that there was no liability coverage on his motorcycle on the day of the accident.

Intact submitted that the Tribunal applied an exclusively subjective test when considering the language of s. 31(1)(a)(i), when it should have applied an objective test. The Tribunal upon reconsideration agreed that there was an error of law in applying a subjective rather than an objective test to the analysis of s. 31(1)(a)(i).

Firstly, it was noted that in the original decision, the adjudicator stated, “Batoor makes it clear at paragraph 76 that the test to apply to the knowledge portion of s. 33(1)(a)(i) is subjective and not objective”. This was found to be in error, as in fact Batoor set out the test to be “when there is no direct evidence of the knowledge of the Applicant as to the insurance coverage on the vehicle, the test in s. 31(1)(a)(i) of the Schedule becomes an objective test”. Further, Batoor goes on to confirm that “in the absence of direct evidence, the decision-maker “must therefore assess what an ordinary rational person, of the age, and background of the Applicant, in the circumstances he encountered that day, ought reasonably to have known about the insurance coverage on the motorcycle”.

Therefore, based upon this faulty premise, the adjudicator then carried out a detailed subjective analysis as to what Vaillancourt knew or believed regarding the existence of liability insurance, and the subjective reasonableness of his knowledge and beliefs. It was then concluded to be reasonable that Vaillancourt was unaware he was operating the motorcycle without liability insurance. It was noted that in this analysis, “the Tribunal did not make reference to what an ordinary rational person, of the age, and background of the applicant, in the circumstances he encountered that day, ought reasonably to have known about the insurance coverage on the motorcycle. This is the analysis that is required for consideration of s.31(1)(a)(i).”

As a result, it was determined that had the Tribunal “applied the objective test required by s. 31(1)(a)(i), it would likely have resulted in a different outcome.” Had the correct test been applied “it would have found that an ordinary, rational person of the age and background of the applicant, in the circumstances he encountered the day of his accident, ought reasonably to have known that the motorcycle he was operating on July 26, 2017 was not insured under a motor vehicle liability policy.”

Amongst the factors relied upon, it was noted that Vaillancourt, in his profession as both a paramedic and dispatcher of emergency helicopters “would have been required to review and understand complex documentation and gather critical information in life and death situations.”

Additionally, he had experience obtaining insurance and adjusting coverage as required. He “paid no insurance premiums for his motorcycle, while continuing to pay premiums for his other vehicle.” He also “knew enough about his insurance coverage to request an adjustment in coverage when he put the motorcycle into storage, but he did not adjust it when he took it out of storage and drove it on the date of the accident.”

Therefore, the “Tribunal’s Decision is varied to find the applicant’s claim is subject to the exclusion in s. 31(1)(a)(i) of the Schedule.”



Court Finds Tribunal Resolved a Conflict of Its Own Making

Resolving a Conflict That Did Not Exist – In Spence v. Aviva, Aviva sought judicial appeal of a Tribunal decision (upheld upon Reconsideration) that EI sickness benefits were not deductible from Spence’s weekly IRB entitlement. The Court ultimately allowed the appeal and set aside the adjudicator’s decision, finding that “the adjudicator erred by introducing a distinction between sickness benefits and other benefits paid under the EIA (collectively, “EI benefits”) that was not called for by either the text, context, scheme, or purpose of the Schedule, thereby creating disharmony where none existed before.”

The Court framed the appeal as determining “whether EI sickness benefits received after an accident must be included in gross employment income under s. 4(1) and therefore deducted from the IRB otherwise payable at the rate of 70 per cent under s. 7(3)(a) of the Schedule.”

The first of three errors by the Tribunal was “in finding ambiguity in the Schedule as it relates to the treatment of EI benefits. As Aviva correctly submits, there is no such ambiguity.” It was noted that EI benefits were referred to in four places in the Schedule, all of which “operate to treat all EI benefits as income, regardless of whether they were being received before the accident, and to treat all EI benefits similarly, regardless of the reason for which the benefits are being paid.”

It was further noted that the adjudicator had found it “unhelpful that the Legislature had not parsed out the different types of EI benefits under the Schedule.” To this, the Court indicated “the fact that they were not parsed out ought to have indicated to the adjudicator the Legislature’s intention not to treat them any differently… it would have been a simple matter to do so, had that been the intent.”

The second error of the Tribunal was in finding that only income from active employment was deductible from IRB. The Tribunal however has affirmed that one need not be engaged in active employment for income to be considered as gross employment income. Deciding as it did was said to having had the effect of overcompensating Spence. The Court did not agree with Spence’s answer that any such overcompensation might be adjusted by the Commission under the EIA, “given the degree to which the adjudicator’s decision interfered with the purpose of the Schedule”. The payment of an EI benefit was noted to involve at least two prerequisites, with all having one in common, “the fact that they are paid “as a result of being employed”, just as the name of the EIA suggests.”

Finally, the Court found that the Tribunal erred in finding the EI benefits paid qualified as a “temporary disability benefit”. For this to be the case, said benefits would need to be “in respect of an impairment that occurred before the accident”, whereas in the within matter the EI was being paid in connection with the very accident for which IRB was received. Therefore, it “was not open to the adjudicator to find that the sickness benefits being paid to Ms. Spence qualified as temporary disability benefits and, therefore, there was no possibility of a conflict in the way in which they were treated under the Schedule.”

As a result of these three errors, the Court allowed the appeal and the original decision was set aside. As agreed, there were no costs payable.



Access inHEALTH’s research resources through Live Chat and receive your OAR. Get It now!

 

Archive of LAT Updates

March 27, 2024: Supreme Court Takes Issue with Tribunal, Divisional Court & Court of Appeal

Limitation Period, Reconsideration, Supreme Court

March 25, 2024: Expert’s Conclusory Statement Insufficient on Pre-existing Condition

MIG

March 20, 2024: Non-Compliance by Both Parties Impacts IRB and Medical Claims

IRB

March 18, 2024: No Weight Afforded to Handwritten Illegible CNR’s

MIG

March 13, 2024: Denials Deficient and Pain Relief Validates Treatment Plans

Treatment Plans

March 11, 2024: “Radicular Irritation” & MRI Findings Not MVA Related

MIG

March 6, 2024: Tribunal Upholds Decision Excluding Improperly Secured IEs From the Evidence

Evidence, IE, Reconsideration

March 4, 2024: Concussion and Chronic Pain Diagnoses Require Expertise

MIG

February 28, 2024: Prior Health Concerns Complicate Claim for CAT

CAT

February 26, 2024: Unchallenged Virtual Chronic Pain Assessment Accepted

MIG

February 21, 2024: Consent by Parties for Adjournment Not Determinative

Adjournment, Procedure

February 14, 2024: Tribunal Does Not Accept the CAT Findings of Either Party

CAT

February 12, 2024: MIG Escape on Concussion Diagnosis Despite Resolution of Symptoms

MIG

February 7, 2024: Financial Hardship Not A Defense for Repayment Responsibility

IRB

February 5, 2024: CT Scan of Wrist Fracture Contradicts Medical Opinion

MIG

January 29, 2024: Concussion Despite No Head Injury?

MIG

January 24, 2024: One Assessment Process Produces Two Discrete Reports

CAT, Productions

January 22, 2024: Defective Notices Do Not Trigger Limitation

MIG

January 17, 2024: Election Not Required, LAT Act Invoked & Limits Exhausted?

Award, Limitation Period

January 15, 2024: Chronic Pain Diagnosis Contradicted by Self-Reports

MIG

January 10, 2024: NEB Reinstated After Six Years Generates Award

Award, NEB

January 8, 2024: Undisputed Psychological Diagnosis Prevails

MIG

January 3, 2024: Significant & Competing Price of Non-Compliance for Both Parties

Non-Compliance

December 20, 2023 (Throwback Edition): Statutory Relief Within Tribunal’s Jurisdiction

Jurisdiction

December 18, 2023: ‘Incident’ of Viewing Video Not Use and Operation

MIG

December 13, 2023 (Throwback Edition): Employed Applicant Remains Entitled to Post 104 IRB

IRB

December 11, 2023: Chronic Pain Diagnosis In Absence of Physical Exam?

MIG

December 6, 2023: Four Marked Impairments for 2010 MVA

CAT

December 4, 2023: No Adverse Inference Drawn Despite Lack of pre MVA CNRs

MIG

November 29, 2023 (THROWBACK EDITION): 18 Month Delayed Notice Reasonable, However 7 Month Delay is Not

Limitation Period

November 27, 2023: Confirmed High Bar to Escape MIG on Pre-Existing

MIG

November 22, 2023: Multiple IEs Excluded From Evidence

IE, Evidence

November 20, 2023: Radiculopathy Complaint Requires a Diagnosis

MIG

November 15, 2023: Court Applies Tomec & CAT Decision Varied

CAT, Limitation Period

November 13, 2023: Insurer Expert Conclusion Inconsistent with Findings

MIG

November 8, 2023: Maximum Award in Excess of $60K on CAT Case

CAT

November 6, 2023: Medical Evidence Overrides Legal Referrals

MIG

November 1, 2023: Eighteen Month Delayed Notice Reasonable However Seven Month Delay is Not

Limitation Period

October 30, 2023: Which MVA Exacerbated Injuries?

MIG

October 25, 2023: Application Seeking CAT Determination an Abuse of Process

CAT

October 23, 2023: Functional Disability Despite 50 Hour Work Week

MIG

October 18, 2023: Statutory Relief Renders Equitable Remedy Moot

Div Court

October 16, 2023: Injuries Not Static - MIG Determined Again

MIG

October 11, 2023: CERB is Income However Not “Gross Employment Income”

IRB

October 4, 2023: Employed Applicant Remains Entitled to Post 104 IRB

IRB

October 2, 2023: ‘IE’ Does Not Establish Causation

MIG

September 27, 2023: Post June 1 CAT Criterion 8 Satisfied

CAT

September 25, 2023: Chronic Pain Distinct from Recurring Pain

MIG

September 20, 2023: Expert Opinion Not Required for IRB Entitlement

IRB

September 18, 2023: Inconsistency Argument Not Accepted

MIG

September 13, 2023: IRB Payment Delayed Four Years – 20% Award

Award, IRB

September 11, 2023: MIG Determined Absent Applicants Written Submissions

MIG

August 30, 2023: Pain Determinative in Successful Post June 1 CAT Case

CAT

August 28, 2023: Knee Injury from MVA Caused Slip and Fall & ACL Tear?

MIG

August 23, 2023: WSIB Placement Qualifies for IRB

IRB

August 21, 2023: Absence of Applicant’s Medicals A Difference Maker

MIG

Contact Sales

416.364.6688

Contact Support

Contact Us

InHealth

11 Allstate Parkway Suite 203
Markham, Ontario
L3R 9T8

Follow Us On