|
Standing - Tribunal Standing on JR/Appeal (2). Carpenter v. Intact Insurance Company and Licence Appeal Tribunal
In Carpenter v. Intact Insurance Company and Licence Appeal Tribunal (Ont Div Ct, 2025) the Ontario Divisional Court considered the standing of the LAT (a tribunal), here at a Divisional Court LAT SABS appeal:[2] Mr. Carpenter has not filed any materials nor indicated he intends to participate in the appeal/application. The Tribunal is entitled to participate in the application pursuant to s. 9(2) of the Judicial Review Procedure Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. J.1. In previous court directions, Shore J. granted the Tribunal standing to participate in the appeal. Because Mr. Carpenter is not participating in the appeal, the Tribunal is seeking leave to participate on a more substantive basis. Specifically, it seeks to make submissions directed at the statutory interpretation and procedural fairness issues to be determined on the appeal.
....
[4] I have considered the factors set out in Children’s Lawyer for Ontario v. Goodis (2005), 2005 CanLII 11786 (ON CA), 75 O.R. (3d) 309 (C.A.) and Ontario (Energy Board) v. Ontario Power Generation Inc., 2015 SCC 44. I conclude the Tribunal should be permitted to participate on all issues, though it should not take a position on the outcome of the issues, nor adopt an adversarial tone. I reach this conclusion for the following reasons:A. I do not accept that the interpretive issue is only the application of a common law test outside of the Tribunal’s expertise. While the Tribunal considered the common law test for “automobile,” the cases it cited arose in the insurance context. Also, the ultimate question was whether Mr. Carpenter was involved in an “accident” as defined in the SABS. This case sufficiently engages the Tribunal’s specialized expertise that the court would benefit from the Tribunal’s expanded participation.
B. Without the Tribunal’s expanded participation, given Mr. Carpenter’s apparent intention not to participate in the appeal/application, the court would be left without any arguments countering those offered by Intact.
C. I have some concern about the Tribunal’s adjudicative role, especially in the context of the allegations of procedural unfairness. In my view, these concerns can be mitigated by the Tribunal taking a careful approach. Under this approach, the Tribunal is permitted to point the court to relevant cases and/or parts of the record. Unless the panel permits otherwise in oral argument, the Tribunal should not advocate for a particular outcome or conclusion arising from the information and context it provides.
|
