Ontario's Court of Appeal has tossed an order forcing Tribunals Ontario to disclose hundreds of internal records in an accident benefits dispute.
The May 14, 2026 ruling in Derenzis v. Ontario, 2026 ONCA 344 sided with the Safety, Licensing Appeal and Standards Tribunals Ontario, which had been ordered to produce some 400 internal Licence Appeal Tribunal documents - including draft decisions and emails between staff, counsel, and adjudicators - to plaintiffs Lucia Derenzis and Joshua Da Silva.
The dispute traces back to a motor vehicle collision on November 24, 2015. Derenzis sought statutory accident benefits from her insurer, Gore Mutual Insurance Company. After two LAT applications went against her - decisions later upheld by the Divisional Court - Derenzis and Da Silva sued Gore and other defendants in the Superior Court of Justice. Sections 267.5 and 280(3) of the Insurance Act blocked that path, so the plaintiffs took aim at the statute itself.
Their statement of claim argues that s. 280(3) violates s. 96 of the Constitution Act, 1867 by giving exclusive jurisdiction over accident benefits to a tribunal they characterize as lacking adjudicative independence and systemically biased against them and their law firm. They also claim that the LAT's lack of adjudicative independence disproportionately impacts persons with disabilities, contrary to ss. 7 and 15 of the Charter, and that the s. 267.5 damages cap discriminates on the basis of disability.
To support their bias allegation, the plaintiffs sought production from Tribunals Ontario of records relating to Derenzis's LAT applications under Rule 30.10 of the Rules of Civil Procedure. A motion judge granted the request on May 5, 2025.
The Court of Appeal disagreed. Writing for a unanimous panel, Justice Rahman found the motion judge erred on relevance, materiality, and fairness. The LAT's alleged lack of independence in handling Derenzis's claims, the court said, would not advance the constitutional arguments. Adjudicative independence is not a jurisdictional issue under s. 96. And s. 7 of the Charter does not engage the kind of property or economic rights at stake in an accident benefits claim.
Rahman J.A. also rejected the motion judge's narrow reading of deliberative secrecy in the administrative context, citing the Supreme Court's principle that "secrecy remains the rule." The records, he concluded, were largely correspondence supporting the daily deliberative and administrative work of LAT adjudicators - not evidence of bias or lawlessness.
The panel stressed that non-party production orders are exceptional, not routine, especially against an administrative tribunal that is presumptively independent. Tribunals Ontario, the court said, was brought into the litigation only because the plaintiffs sought records from it. It is not a necessary party.
The appeal was allowed, the production order set aside, and the Rule 30.10 motion dismissed. The court also dismissed the appellant's fresh evidence motion, declined to treat a related Divisional Court decision as evidence, and ordered the documents to remain under seal. The plaintiffs were ordered to pay $5,000 in costs of the appeal.
The court held that orders under r. 30.10 are exceptional and that, in the administrative context, "secrecy remains the rule."
