skip to main content
Back to Top

BLAWG Post

Oct 18, 2017

Ont. Div'l. Ct. upholds LAT Adjudicator's decision in case where our Shikha Sharma acted for the respondent insurer, and held the appropriate standard of review from the LAT is reasonableness

Posted in Accident Benefits

Author Michael S. Teitelbaum

Related Lawyers Linda Kiley and Shikha Sharma

Many thanks to my colleagues Bevin Shores and Laura Dickson who have been monitoring the recent case law while I've been away.

One of the decisions involved our very own Shikha Sharma who was successful before a three-judge panel of the Ontario Divisional Court in upholding the decision of the Licence Appeal Tribunal in a SABS IRB decision which also dealt with the standard of appellate review from a LAT decision. Laura Dickson prepared a note about that decision which is set out below, and which I've lightly edited.

I add my congratulatory voice to hers in saying Well Done, Shikha!

Laura's note:


In Melo v Northbridge Personal Insurance Company, 2017 ONSC (Div Ct) 5885, our own Shikha Sharma, acting on behalf of the insurer, successfully defended an appeal from a LAT decision. Congratulations, Shikha!   

By decision dated February 14, 2017, following a written hearing, Adjudicator Sewrattan of the LAT held the claimant was not entitled to the IRB as claimed. The note on the prior LAT decision is pasted below. The applicant appealed to the Divisional Court.

The Divisional Court, noting its jurisdiction to hear appeals from the LAT are limited to an appeal based on questions of law only, held that the standard of review to be applied is reasonableness.

The Divisional Court stated in part:

“[17] The Adjudicator cited the correct legal test for entitlement to an income replacement benefit, and correctly identified and conducted the comparative exercise that section 5(1) the Schedule requires, namely to compare the essential tasks of an insured’s pre accident employment with his post-accident ability to perform them. In particular,  at paragraph 19 of his reasons, the Adjudicator reviewed the essential tasks and at paragraph 29 concluded that the “sprains and strains” suffered as a result of the accident did not render the Applicant substantially unable to perform those tasks.

[18] The adjudicator weighed the evidence, applied the proper standard of proof, and provided reasons for his findings, which were well grounded in the material before him. His exercise of weighing the evidence and preferring some evidence over other evidence does not amount to question of law only. It is also well established that the Adjudicator was not obliged in his reasons to refer to all the evidence put before him, and as such, his failure to refer specifically  to the second disability certificate of Dr. Ullah is not determinative.

[19] The Applicant has failed to establish an error of law. The Adjudicator’s decision was reasonable as it was within the range of possible outcomes.” 

The court dismissed the appeal and ordered costs in the amount of $5,000 payable by the applicant to the respondent.


 

Congratulations to our Shikha Sharma for LAT Adjudicator's finding that applicant not entitled to IRBs

by Michael Teitelbaum | Feb 14, 2017
 

​Hearty Congratulations and a tip of the advocacy chapeau to our Shikha Sharma who was successful before the Licence Appeal Tribunal in M.M. and Northbridge in persuading Adjudicator Sewrattan that the applicant was not entitled to the payment of income replacement benefits (IRBs).

Our Linda Kiley observes that the key to the Adjudicator’s decision was his finding that the applicant’s report submitted by Dr. Wong (physiatrist) did not support the applicant's position. The Adjudicator ruled that Dr. Wong had failed to establish a link between the tests that he conducted and his diagnosis of chronic pain syndrome. The Adjudicator agreed with Shikha’s submissions that the applicant had failed to satisfy his onus of establishing a causal link between his post-accident symptoms and his inability to return to his pre-accident employment.

Please see paras. 22-29 in this respect.

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

Well Done, Shikha!

Keywords

  • IRBs
  • LAT
  • SABS
  • reasonableness standard
  • appellate review standard

Related Team

Linda-Kiley-2454web

Linda Kiley

Email me

P: (416) 367-1608 ext 245 (416) 367-1608 ext 245

Toronto (800) 565-1713 (800) 565-1713

Read Bio

Shikha Sharma

Shikha Sharma

Email me

P: (416) 367-1608 ext 343 (416) 367-1608 ext 343

Toronto (800) 565-1713 (800) 565-1713

Read Bio

Related BLAWGS

Nov
01
2018

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......

Oct
15
2018

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......

Oct
15
2018

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