The long awaited decision of AIG Insurance Company v. Riddell, 2025 ONSC 1979 (CanLII), has finally been released, after a 6-month reserve for written reasons, even though the decision was rendered orally at the time of the hearing in October 2024. In this judgment, the Divisional Court stayed an Order of the License Appeal Tribunal (“LAT”) that denied an adjournment of a hearing in a matter that, due to its complexity, warranted greater consideration.
The primary issue before the Divisional Court panel comprised of Justices David Corbett, Wendy Matheson, and Breese Davies, was a scheduling conflict of a 7-day hearing at the LAT. The respondent was seeking a catastrophic designation, and the insurer, AIG, opposed this designation. A case conference was held in May 2024 where the LAT ordered that the application was to proceed to an in-person 7-day hearing. In June 2024, the LAT provided the parties with a list of possible dates, but both counsel and their witnesses, including medical experts, were unavailable on these dates. Both counsel requested that the LAT provide alternate dates, but the LAT declined, and instead unilaterally scheduled a hearing on November 12, 2024, when neither party was available. AIG brought a motion for an adjournment of the hearing and proposed mutually agreeable dates in May 2025. The motion was on consent, but the LAT nevertheless denied the adjournment on August 30, 2024. AIG sought reconsideration, which was also denied. AIG then applied for judicial review and moved for an interlocutory stay of the LAT proceedings pending hearing of the application.
The Divisional Court found in favour of the parties. It stayed the order of the LAT directing that the hearing commence on November 12, 2024, stating that the denial of an adjournment in this particular instance was unfair and unreasonable. In the oral decision rendered in October 2024, it directed the LAT to schedule the hearing for the mutually agreeable dates in May 2025, with the Divisional Court case management judge being available to address any further steps in the application.
Writing for the unanimous three judge panel, Justice Corbett noted that the Divisional Court rarely reviewed interlocutory orders of an administrative tribunal. However, this case involved exceptional circumstances, and AIG established a strong prima facie case for same, thereby meeting the first part of the test for staying the order. Firstly, the matter involved the issue of catastrophic designation which arose from the noted Yonge Street van attack in Toronto in April 2018. The hearing was to be lengthy, with numerous medical expert witnesses. Second, the LAT scheduled the November 2024 hearing dates despite knowing that counsel was not available. Third, in an effort to remedy the situation, AIG sought an adjournment and a reconsideration at the LAT, but both were ultimately denied.
Justice Corbett found that the LAT’s reasons for denying the adjournment wrongly focused on the institutional concerns of the Tribunal (i.e. avoiding further delays). Very little weight was given to other significant factors such as the complexity of the matter, counsels’ availability, and the prejudicial effects on both parties. Given the complexity of this matter, the court also disagreed with the LAT’s position that the parties had other alternatives to an adjournment, including retaining new counsel, suggesting that the hearing should proceed in writing instead, recommending that the parties settle the matter in order to resolve the scheduling conflict, and proposing that the parties enter into a tolling agreement.
The court also concluded that AIG would suffer irreparable harm if the stay was not granted, and that the balance of convenience favoured granting the stay – the latter two parts of the three-part test for staying the order.
The Divisional Court makes it clear that a “one size fits all” approach to dealing with scheduling matters at the LAT is not appropriate. To ensure a fair and efficient process for all cases, greater flexibility is required – one that accounts for the interests of the parties, not solely the operational priorities of the Tribunal. Does this mean that counsel will now have a stronger footing when seeking adjournments? Perhaps, but likely only in more complex matters in which both counsel are aligned in their views on the propriety of the adjournment request and when the hearing should occur. The court acknowledged that the LAT’s approach may still be reasonable in simpler cases, where less is at stake and the hearing is brief. In such instances, it seems counsel may continue to face significant institutional challenges from a Tribunal that has thus far demonstrated that the views of the parties, even when aligned, are of no concern relative to the administrative efficiency mandate of the LAT.
Kasia Kosacka is a member of the LAT practice group and the author of this blog. If you have a question about this decision or a similar file, please contact Kasia at 416-777-5249
