In the decision of AIG Insurance Company v. Riddell, the Divisional Court stayed an order of the Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) that denied an adjournment of a complex hearing on the consent of the parties.
This is a unique decision, as the Divisional Court rarely reviews interlocutory orders from administrative tribunals as they have broad authority to regulate their own scheduling. The court found that this matter fell into the category of exceptional circumstances, such that it should intervene to grant a stay of the impugned scheduling order.
The court emphasized that the LAT’s approach to scheduling involved the application of a “one size fits all” basis, which failed to take into account the complexities of the case, the competing obligations of counsel or the prejudice to the parties should the adjournment not be granted. Further, the LAT failed to identify and weigh the interests of the parties and balance those with the institutional concerns that grounded the decision. Finally, the Divisional Court found the impugned decision to be obviously wrong and unfair.
This is an important decision, as the Divisional Court emphasized the importance of avoiding a “one size fits all” scheduling approach, urging the LAT to consider each request on its individual facts and to avoid overemphasizing institutional concerns.
Procedural History
At the Divisional Court, the primary issue involved a scheduling conflict of a hearing at the LAT. The primary issue in dispute was whether the respondent, Ms. Riddell, met the definition of catastrophic impairment.
A case conference was held in May of 2024, in which the LAT ordered that the dispute was to proceed to an in-person seven-day hearing. Proposed dates were provided by the LAT to the parties in June of 2024, however, counsel for both parties, as well as their witnesses (which included medical experts) were not available during the proposed dates. As such, both counsels requested that the LAT provide alternate dates for the hearing. The LAT declined such request, and unilaterally scheduled a hearing in November of 2024, when neither party was available.
AIG brought a motion to adjourn the hearing and proposed to the LAT mutually available dates for the hearing in May of 2025. Despite the motion having been brought with consent of Ms. Riddell, the LAT denied the adjournment request.
AIG requested a reconsideration of the LAT’s decision, which was also denied on the basis that the LAT had no authority to reconsider an interim procedural decision.
AIG subsequently applied for judicial review and moved for an interlocutory stay of the LAT proceedings pending the hearing of the application.
The stay motion was heard by Justice Davies in October of 2024, which was adjourned to an expedited hearing before a panel at the Divisional Court.
Divisional Court
The parties argued the motion before a three Judge panel at the Divisional Court. Writing for the panel, Justice Corbett found that the LAT’s decision and reasons for denying the adjournment request wrongly focused on the institutional concern of the undesirability of further delays. The LAT placed little weight on other significant factors, such as the complexity of the dispute at issue, the availability of counsel and the prejudicial effects on the parties. Further, given the complexity of the matter, the court disagreed with the LAT’s position that there were alternatives to an adjournment, such as retaining new counsel, allowing the hearing to occur in writing, settling the matter or entering into a tolling agreement.
The Divisional Court emphasized the importance of reviewing the factors applicable in each individual matter when determining whether to grant an adjournment request:
“[20] The approach taken by the LAT in this case might be reasonable in a different case, with less at stake, simpler issues, and a shorter hearing. However, “one size does not fit all:” the goal is a fair, expeditious process for all cases, large and small, straightforward and complex. Achieving this goal requires more flexibility, and bearing in mind the interests of the parties, and not just the institutional concerns of the tribunal. I conclude that, in the circumstances of this case, the denial of an adjournment was unfair and unreasonable. Therefore, I conclude that AIG has established a strong prima facie case for exceptional circumstances to review an interlocutory decision, and a strong prima facie case that the impugned decision is wrong and unfair.”
At the conclusion of the hearing, the court found in favour of the parties and stayed the order of the LAT on the basis that the denial of an adjournment in this particular case was unfair and unreasonable. The court rendered an oral decision in which the LAT was directed to schedule the hearing for the mutually agreeable dates in May of 2025.
