Decision: CanLII – AIG Insurance Company v. Riddell, 2025 ONSC 1979
In AIG v. Riddell, the Divisional Court reviewed an order by the LAT that denied an adjournment in a complex catastrophic impairment case stemming from the 2018 Toronto van attack. The LAT scheduled a seven-day hearing in November 2024 despite knowing counsel for both parties, as well as eight expert witnesses, were unavailable. AIG’s unopposed request to move the hearing to May 2025 was denied, as was its request for reconsideration.
Justice Corbett, writing for a unanimous panel, found that the LAT’s refusal was procedurally unfair and ignored critical factors such as the complexity of the case, the unavailability of experienced counsel, and the risk of prejudice to both parties. The LAT’s reasoning relied heavily on institutional efficiency without adequately balancing it against fairness and the nature of the dispute.
The Court applied the three-pronged test from RJR-MacDonald v. AG Canada for granting a stay and concluded that:
- There was a strong prima facie case showing exceptional circumstances justifying judicial review of an interlocutory decision;
- AIG would suffer irreparable harm without a stay, as the proposed alternatives (i.e. replacing counsel, written hearing, re-filing the case) were unreasonable;
- The balance of convenience clearly favoured AIG, as forcing the hearing to proceed would undermine fairness and efficiency.
The Court granted the stay, vacated the November dates, and ordered the LAT to reschedule the hearing to May 2025.
Take Home
While the LAT often prioritizes efficiency in refusing adjournments, this decision underscores that fairness must remain central, especially in complex cases. The Court found the LAT’s refusal to grant an adjournment unreasonable, pointing to the case’s complexity, procedural unfairness, and the Tribunal’s overly rigid “one size fits all” scheduling approach.
That said, insurers should approach adjournment requests with caution. The discretion to grant them remains with the Tribunal and is not assured, even on consent. The Court placed significant weight on the case’s complexity, an element that will not be present in simpler matters like non-CAT claims or written hearings. Although efficiency is not the LAT’s sole concern, it remains an important factor when balancing competing considerations in adjournment decisions.
