skip to main content
Back to Top


Aug 26, 2017

Hughes Amys' Shikha Sharma successful on Request for Reconsideration before the LAT

Posted in Accident Benefits

Author Michael S. Teitelbaum

Further to the earlier Blawg post, pasted below, new congratulations are in order to our Shikha Sharma for successfully resisting the applicant's request for reconsideration of the Licence Appeal Tribunal's decision in D.D.D. and RBC Insurance Company, in which the LAT had found that the applicant was not working after the accident due to being laid off for reasons unrelated to the accident, and the Adjudicator dismissed the original application. 

The non-cuttable and non-pasteable decision is attached.

The Executive Chair of SLASTO denied the request for reconsideration finding:

1) There was no error by the Adjudicator in the application of the applicable test for determining eligibility for an IRB, setting out the reasons the applicant did not suffer from a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of her pre-accident employment at para. 16;

2) The Adjudicator applied the requisite standard of proof, (see paras. 18-20);

3) There was no error by the Adjudicator in considering evidence, as the evidence about pre-accident employment more than one year before the accident did not provide any basis for the Tribunal's conclusion; and

4) The Adjudicator did not misapprehend the evidence, or hear misleading evidence.

Well Done, Shikha!

Congratulations to Hughes Amys' Shikha Sharma on her successful result before the Licence Appeal Tribunal in an IRBs claim

by Michael Teitelbaum | Apr 01, 2017

Hearty Congratulations and a tip of the advocacy chapeau to our Shikha Sharma for her second recent success before the Licence Appeal Tribunal!

In D.D.D. and RBC Insurance Company, it was held that the applicant was not entitled to income replacement benefits. 

Our Linda Kiley observes that this was one of the earliest LAT hearings and is noteworthy because the Adjudicator permitted the applicant, the family doctor and a chronic pain specialist to give evidence at an oral hearing. 

After considering all of the evidence, the Adjudicator accepted Shikha’s submission that the applicant was not working after the accident due to being laid off for reasons unrelated to the accident. The Adjudicator held that the applicant had failed to prove her entitlement to IRBs and dismissed her application.

A non-cuttable and non-pasteable version of the decision is attached.  

Adjudicator Gottfried addressed certain evidentiary issues, holding that any documents that were not produced on time prior to the hearing could not be relied upon at the hearing, but did allow documents produced at the case conference to be used. The Adjudicator also allowed the family doctor to testify on the clinical notes and records that had been submitted in evidence, although there was a prior understanding the doctor would give evidence via affidavit. Shikha prepared her cross-examination on short notice and advised the Adjudicator she had sufficient time to prepare and was not prejudiced.

The Adjudicator found that "she did not suffer from a substantial inability to perform her pre-accident employment tasks and that she was not working because she was laid off. There was no evidence before me that she was laid off because of an inability to perform her employment tasks and, in fact the applicant testified she continued to look for work between layoffs and was available to work if a position was available".


  • onus of proof
  • reconsideration of decision
  • LAT
  • IRBs
  • SABS

Related Team

Related BLAWGS


Ont. C.A. Upholds Dismissal of Court Application Challenging LAT’s Jurisdiction over SABS disputes, agreeing Applicant lacked standing

In the Blawg-posted case of Campisi v Ontario (Attorney General), a challenge to the amended section 280 of the Insurance Act granting sole jurisdiction of the Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) over statutory accident benefits (SAB......


Ont. Div. Ct. dismisses application for judicial review of LAT decision upholding limitation period

In Tomec v Economical Mutual Insurance Company, 2018 ONSC 5664, a three judge panel of the Divisional Court dismissed the appellant (claimant)’s application for judicial review of the Licence Appeal Tribunal’s decision finding tha......


Ont. Div. Ct. dismisses judicial review application appealing LAT adjudicator’s finding that failure to elect a benefit precluded claimant from seeking entitlement to Non-Earner Benefits at the LAT

In Lefebvre v. Aviva Insurance Company of Canada, 2018 ONSC 5676, a three-judge panel of the Divisional Court dismissed the claimant’s application for judicial review of a Licence Appeal Tribunal adjudicator’s finding that the cla......

The BLAWG on this website and the material published on it, including the links to other websites, are made available by the lawyer and law firm publisher for educational purposes only as well as to give the BLAWG's readers general information and a general understanding of the law, and not to provide specific legal advice. This BLAWG is for general informational purposes only, and use of this BLAWG does not create a Lawyer-Client Relationship. Hughes Amys LLP is a law firm and most of the information on the BLAWG relates to legal topics and cases. Hughes Amys LLP does not offer or dispense legal advice through this BLAWG or by e-mails directed to or from this site. By using the BLAWG, the reader agrees that the information on this BLAWG does not constitute legal or other professional advice and no lawyer-client or other relationship is created between the reader and Hughes Amys LLP or its lawyers. The BLAWG is not a substitute for obtaining legal advice from a qualified lawyer. The information on the BLAWG may be changed without notice and is not guaranteed to be complete, correct or up-to-date. While the BLAWG is revised on a regular basis, it may not reflect the most current legal developments. Any comments, views or opinions expressed at or through the BLAWG are intended to provide general commentary on the law and legal issues, and are not intended for or should be understood as being posted for any other purpose. The BLAWG should not be used as a substitute for securing appropriate legal advice from a licensed professional lawyer in respect of particular facts and circumstances. Please use your own good judgment before choosing to act on any information included in the BLAWG, doing so entirely at your own risk.
  • Canadian Lawyer - Top 10 Boutique 2017-18
  • The ARC Group
  • Best Lawyers 2017
  • Canadian Legal Lexpert Directory 2016

© 201​6-17 All rights reserved | Legal Disclaimer | Privacy Policy | Accessibility