In Leslie v. Intact Insurance Company, 2026 CanLII 50997 (ON LAT), the Ontario Licence Appeal Tribunal rejected a driver's catastrophic impairment claim but ordered Intact to pay costs for failing to produce an adjuster.
In the decision, 2026 ONLAT 25-002760/AABS, released May 27, 2026, Vice-Chair Brian Norris ruled that Lorraine Leslie had not met her onus to prove she sustained a catastrophic impairment from an October 16, 2020 motor vehicle accident. The decision delivers a mixed result for Intact - a win on the catastrophic designation, a partial win on treatment plans, but a $500 costs sanction over the insurer's conduct at the hearing.
Leslie sought a catastrophic impairment finding under criterion 8 of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule, which measures mental and behavioural impairment across activities of daily living, social functioning, concentration persistence and pace, and adaptation. Her psychiatrist, Dr. S. Shahmalak, rated her as moderately impaired in daily living and markedly impaired in the other three domains. Intact's psychiatrist, Dr. A. Jwely, found mild and moderate impairments only.
The Tribunal sided with Intact's assessor on social functioning. Norris noted that Leslie attended aquafit classes weekly, visited the hair and nail salons regularly, travelled to Cuba at least twice since the accident, engaged in online dating, hosted her estranged son for Thanksgiving in 2024, worked part-time selling CPAP machines for about a year starting November 2022, and served on an executive board. Her assessor described her as polite, noted she used humour, and observed her chatting with a friend at the assessment centre. The Vice-Chair concluded these examples showed impairment "compatible with some, but not all, useful functioning" - moderate, not marked. Without three marked impairments, the catastrophic claim collapsed.
On treatment plans, Norris approved an occupational therapy plan of $2,009.57 covering snow removal and a cervical pillow, a massage therapy plan of $777.54, and a physiotherapy plan of $2,164.76. A larger OT plan of $4,289.85 and the unapproved $7,345 balance of catastrophic impairment assessment fees were denied. On the assessment fees, Norris applied section 25(5)(a) of the Schedule, which caps insurer liability at $2,000 plus HST per assessment, and rejected Leslie's argument that an extensive medical record or separate criterion assessments justified higher fees.
The procedural finding is where Intact lost ground. Leslie sought an award under section 10 of Regulation 664, alleging unreasonable delay through IE scheduling and access to treatment. Norris dismissed that claim, finding the insurer's reliance on section 44 examinations was permitted.
But on costs, Norris took a different view. The adjuster who handled the file was on medical leave at the time of the hearing. Rather than produce a different adjuster to speak to the log notes, Intact filed a motion to quash the summons. Norris said the insurer acted unreasonably and interfered with the Tribunal's ability to conduct an efficient hearing. He awarded Leslie $500 in costs under Rule 19 of the Licence Appeal Tribunal Rules, 2023.
For claims professionals, the decision is a reminder that adjuster availability is not just a scheduling matter - it carries procedural cost.
