Appeal of tribunal’s decision denying income replacement benefits denied by the Court

Appellant appeals a tribunal decision denying income replacements benefits. The Court dismissed the appeal holding that the appellant was not denied natural justice and procedural fairness. The Court found that the tribunal took reasonable steps to accommodate the appellant during the tribunal hearing. The Court further held that having the same tribunal members making the reconsideration decision did not deny the appellant procedural fairness.

Administrative law – Decisions reviewed –  Licence Appeal Tribunal – Appeal – Hearings – Natural justice – Procedural requirements and fairness – Standard of review – Reasonableness.

Park v. Geico Insurance Co., [2025] O.J. No. 3277, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, July 23, 2025, H.E. Sachs, M.D. Faieta and L.K. McSweeney JJ.

The appellant was injured in a car accident and claimed for income replacement benefits (“IRBs”) but was denied by the respondent, Geico Insurance Company. The appellant appealed the respondent’s denial to the Licence Appeal Tribunal (the “Tribunal’), but his appeal was dismissed. The appellant requested a reconsideration of the Tribunal’s decision but was denied.

The appellant argued that he was denied natural justice and procedural fairness by the Tribunal in two ways: (1) poor interpretation services at the hearing; and (2) the reconsideration decision was made by the same member of the Tribunal member who made the initial decision.

Regarding the interpretation services, the appellant argued that the Tribunal’s failure to replace the interpreter providing poor interpretation services resulted in a denial of procedural fairness. He further argued that he was denied an opportunity to obtain the transcript to support his appeal. The Court found no denial of procedural fairness or natural justice on these points. The Court found that the Tribunal took appropriate steps to ensure that the appellant’s submission was understood. The appellant did not dispute that the Tribunal took these appropriate steps. The Court further held that the appellant was precluded from arguing the issue of being denied an opportunity to obtain the transcript to support his appeal. The Court reviewed with the appellant the procedural steps taken in the appeal process related to his transcript request. A panel scheduled to hear his appeal granted an adjournment of three months to allow the appellant to obtain a transcript of the Tribunal hearing. The appellant subsequently emailed the Court stating he would like to proceed with the hearing without the transcript.

Regarding the appellant’s argument that the reconsideration decision was made by the same members of the Tribunal panel who made the initial decision, the Court relied on the decision of Warren v. Licence Appeal Tribunal, 2022 ONSC 3741 holding that having tribunal members reconsider their own decisions contributes to the goal of efficiency and expeditiousness since the adjudicators know the file and are therefore best placed to assess the issues raised in a reconsideration request. Reconsideration under the Tribunal Rules is not a hearing de novo or an appeal; it is a corrective mechanism which allows an adjudicator to correct overriding errors or fundamental evidentiary concerns. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed.

This case was digested by Eric Mo of Harper Grey LLP.  If you would like to discuss this case further, please feel free to contact him directly at [email protected].