|
Administrative - Interlocutory Orders. Jendrika v. Intact Insurance Company
In Jendrika v. Intact Insurance Company (Ont Divisional Ct, 2025) the Divisional Court dismissed a LAT SABS appeal, here from a reconsideration denial, that from an earlier denial of a time extension to file a reconsideration, that from an IRB and benefits denial.
Here the court considered whether it had jurisdiction to hear the appeal, on the argument that the reconsiderations and the time extension would have been, if granted, interlocutory orders:[16] The Respondent argues that this Court does not have the jurisdiction to consider an appeal from an interlocutory order such as a reconsideration decision. ....
....
Issue #1- Jurisdiction
[19] .... this Court does not have the jurisdiction to consider an appeal from an interlocutory decision of the LAT. In this case, I am of the view that both the time extension and reconsideration decisions are interlocutory decisions and not final ones. These two decisions do not resolve the merits of the case on a final basis. Therefore, they are not the proper basis for an appeal to this Court.
[20] The starting point for the analysis of this issue is section 11(6) of the Licence Appeal Tribunal Act 1999, S.O. 1999, c. 12, Sch.G, (“LATA”) which states:(6) An appeal from a decision of the Tribunal relating to a matter under the Insurance Act may be made on a question of law only. 2014, c. 9, Sched. 5, s. 5 (3). [21] This Court has repeatedly found that this section does not provide for appeals of interlocutory orders. Penney v. Co-operators General Insurance Company 2022 ONSC 3874 at paras. 8-17, Grewal v. Peel Mutual Insurance Co., 2022 ONSC 4082 and Rao v. Wawanesa Mutual Insurance Company 2024 ONSC 39.
[22] In Rao, the Court stated (at paras. 24-25):[24] There is also the decision of this Court in Grewal v. Peel Mutual Insurance Company, 2022 ONSC 4082. In Grewal, an appeal was quashed because the LAT decision at issue was not final. The LAT decision denied a request to add a punitive damages claim to a SABS application at an early stage of the LAT process. A reconsideration of that LAT decision had already been denied. Although the facts in Grewal are different, it supports the conclusion that LAT decisions denying a reconsideration do not automatically give rise to a right of appeal to this Court. The LAT Decision denying reconsideration of the denial of an extension of time was interlocutory and did not give rise to a right of appeal to this Court. I do not have to decide whether a reconsideration decision can ever be final – that case is not before me.
[25] I conclude that only the Merits Decision gives rise to a right of appeal in this case. [23] Rao leaves open the possibility that, in some circumstances, a reconsideration decision might be a final decision. This is not that case. In this case, the reconsideration decision is not of the merits of the case. It is a reconsideration of the decision denying an extension of time to file a reconsideration decision. That is clearly an interlocutory issue. Similarly, the lime limits decision is interlocutory.
[24] Since neither the extension decision nor the reconsideration of that decision are final decisions, I conclude that this Court does not have jurisdiction to consider them. I would dismiss the Appellant’s appeal of both of those decisions. The remaining two issues shall be considered in reference to the decision on the merits only.
|
