Application for stay and judicial review of Licence Appeal Tribunal proceeding denied

Insurance law – Automobile insurance – Jurisdiction – Statutory Accident Benefits – Appeals

Aviva Canada Inc. v. Taylor, [2017] O.J. No. 2146, 2017 ONSC 2661, Ontario Superior Court of Justice – Divisional Court, April 27, 2017, F.P. Kiteley J.

The Court was faced with a judicial review application following the transfer of jurisdiction under the Insurance Act dealing with statutory accident benefits to the Licence Appeal Tribunal (the “Tribunal”) in 2016. The insurer/applicant brought a motion for a stay of the Tribunal proceeding pending judicial review of two decisions of the Tribunal to refuse the insurer’s request for an adjournment hearing on the determination of a legal issue.

The respondent was a man in his 20s who was involved in an ATV crash which left him with severe injuries. The insurer initially paid statutory accident benefits but ultimately informed the respondent that the respondent was not entitled to receive statutory accident benefit coverage in connection with the incident and ceased paying further benefits. The respondent initiated a dispute resolution relating to the denial of statutory accident benefits through the Tribunal. The Tribunal scheduled a case conference and the adjudicator indicated that the five issues in dispute would be submitted to a written hearing with a timetable for filing written submissions. Included in the respondent’s written submissions was an affidavit based largely on information and belief. The insurer requested that the hearing in writing be adjourned and requested that the affidavit be withdrawn or that the Tribunal permit cross‑examination on it. The respondent opposed the adjournment. The Tribunal refused the request for an adjournment. The insurer sought to review this decision.

The Court dismissed the application for a stay on the basis that the application was premature, because the administrative process had not been allowed to run its course, and on the basis the insurer had not established sufficient grounds for the Court to grant the stay.

This case was digested by Cameron B. Elder and edited by David W. Pilley of Harper Grey LLP. If you would like to discuss this case further, please feel free to contact them directly at or or review their biographies at

To stay current with the new case law and emerging legal issues in this area, subscribe here.