Chevalier-Wara v. Economical, 2026 ONSC 2982
Chevalier-Wara appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that he was not catastrophically impaired in a motor vehicle accident and was not entitled to attendant care benefits. The court ruled that the tribunal’s reasons for its decision were plainly inadequate, calling them “largely conclusory” and resting in part on factual findings for which there was no evidence or for which the findings required considerable explanation. The tribunal failed to account for the extensive expert evidence inconsistent with the its findings. The result is that the injured person would be unable to understand why the overwhelming weight of medical opinion and evidence was rejected in favour of findings of fact that were made on assumptions about his abilities, with several of those assumptions having no evidentiary basis whatsoever. The LAT decision was quashed and the matter was remitted back to the LAT for a new hearing with a with a different adjudicator.