Kanareitsev v. TTC Insurance Co. et al., (2008) 240 O.A.C. 21 (DC)

• Judge: Lane, McCombs and Sedgwick, JJ.
• Court: Superior Court of Justice of Ontario (Canada)
• Case Date: September 19, 2007
• Jurisdiction: Ontario
• Citations: (2008), 240 O.A.C. 21 (DC)

Kanareitsev v. TTC Ins. (2008), 240 O.A.C. 21 (DC)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2008] O.A.C. TBEd. JN.035

Stanislave Kanareitsev (applicant) v. TTC Insurance Company Limited and the Financial Services Commission of Ontario (respondents)

(DC-060081917-00)

Indexed As: Kanareitsev v. TTC Insurance Co. et al.

Court of Ontario

Superior Court of Justice

Divisional Court

Lane, McCombs and Sedgwick, JJ.

February 6, 2008.

Summary:

The applicant was injured when, riding his bicycle, he was struck from behind by a Toronto Transit Commission streetcar. The applicant sought statutory accident benefits from the TTC Insurance Co. in accordance with the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule - Accidents On or After November 1, 1996, O.R. 403/96. An arbitrator ruled that the applicant was entitled to benefits. TTC Insurance Co. appealed. The Director's Delegate of the Financial Services Commission of Ontario allowed the appeal and ordered a new arbitration hearing. The applicant sought judicial review.

The Ontario Divisional Court allowed the application. The court restored the arbitrator's decision.

Editor's Note: This decision was delivered prior to the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in New Brunswick (Board of Management) v. Dunsmuir (2008), 372 N.R.1; 329 N.B.R.(2d) 1; 844 A.P.R. 1; 2008 SCC 9.

Administrative Law - Topic 2155

Natural justice - Administrative decisions or findings - Effect of failure of tribunal to give reasons for decisions (incl. sufficiency of reasons) - [See Administrative Law - Topic 9102 ].

Administrative Law - Topic 9102

Boards and tribunals - Judicial review - Standard of review - An arbitrator ruled that the applicant was entitled to statutory accident benefits from the TTC Insurance Co. (TTC) - The Director's Delegate of the Financial Services Commission of Ontario quashed the decision and ordered a new arbitration hearing, holding that the arbitrator had failed to provide adequate reasons for rejecting the evidence of TTC and finding in favour of the applicant - The Ontario Divisional Court restored the arbitrator's decision - The issue of adequacy of reasons involved the application of general principles of law - The standard of review was correctness - The Director's Delegate's decision was incorrect where the arbitrator's decision reviewed much of the evidence placed before her and offered conclusions as to which evidence she accepted and why - It was well-reasoned and addressed the factors relevant to the issue in dispute - See paragraphs 14 to 38.

Cases Noticed:

Pushpanathan v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1998] 1 S.C.R. 982, addendum [1998] 1 S.C.R. 1222; 226 N.R. 201, refd to. [para. 14].

Dr. Q., Re, [2003] 1 S.C.R. 226; 302 N.R. 34; 179 B.C.A.C. 170; 295 W.A.C. 170, refd to. [para. 14].

Ryan v. Law Society of New Brunswick, [2003] 1 S.C.R. 247; 302 N.R. 1; 257 N.B.R.(2d) 207; 674 A.P.R. 207, refd to. [para. 14].

Toronto (City) v. Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 79 et al., [2003] 3 S.C.R. 77; 311 N.R. 201; 179 O.A.C. 291, refd to. [para. 14].

Voice Construction Ltd. v. Construction & General Workers' Union, Local 92, [2004] 1 S.C.R. 609; 318 N.R. 332; 346 A.R. 201; 320 W.A.C. 201, refd to. [para. 14].

Royal & SunAlliance Insurance Co. of Canada v. Volfson et al. (2005), 203 O.A.C. 312 (Div. Ct.), refd to. [para. 16].

Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. v. Young et al. (2006), 207 O.A.C. 377 (Div. Ct.), refd to. [para. 21].

Kumar v. Coachman Insurance Co. et al., [2004] O.A.C. Uned. 331 (Div. Ct.), leave to appeal refused (2005), 346 N.R. 200 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 21].

Turner v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. et al. (2004), 184 O.A.C. 186 (Div. Ct.), revd. (2005), 195 O.A.C. 61 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 22].

H'ng et al. v. Allstate Insurance Co. of Canada et al., [2000] O.A.C. Uned. 350 (Div. Ct.), refd to. [para. 22].

Baker v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 817; 243 N.R. 22, refd to. [para. 24].

Lawson v. Lawson (2006), 214 O.A.C. 94 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 25].

International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 1739 v. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers et al. (2007), 225 O.A.C. 341; 86 O.R.(3d) 508 (Div. Ct.), refd to. [para. 25].

R. v. Sheppard (C.), [2002] 1 S.C.R. 869; 284 N.R. 342; 211 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 50; 633 A.P.R. 50, consd. [para. 26].

Diamond Auto Collision Inc. et al. v. Economical Insurance Group (2007), 227 O.A.C. 51 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 27].

Canadian Broadcasting Corp. Pension Plan v. BF Realty Holdings Ltd. - see MacDonald et al. v. BF Realty Holdings Ltd. et al.

MacDonald et al. v. BF Realty Holdings Ltd. et al. (2002), 160 O.A.C. 72; 214 D.L.R.(4th) 121 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 27].

Kalin v. College of Teachers (Ont.) (2005), 198 O.A.C. 201; 75 O.R.(3d) 523 (Div. Ct.), consd. [para. 28].

Fisher v. Moir, [2005] O.J. No. 4479 (Div. Ct.), refd to. [para. 28].

R. v. G.W. (1996), 93 O.A.C. 1 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 29].

Counsel:

Edward Goldentuler, for the applicant;

Norma Priday and Laura Qaqish, for the respondent TTC Insurance Company Limited;

Larissa Easson, for the respondent the Financial Services Commission of Ontario.

This application was heard on September 19, 2007, by Lane, McCombs and Sedgwick, JJ., of the Ontario Divisional Court. The Divisional Court released the following endorsement on February 6, 2008.