An Ontario tribunal tossed a conflict-of-interest challenge against an insurer's lawyer, ruling it had no jurisdiction without a live benefits dispute.
In Kelly v. The Commonwell Mutual Insurance Group, decided April 21, 2026, the Licence Appeal Tribunal found that a standalone challenge to opposing counsel falls outside its authority when no accident benefits are actually being contested.
The case stems from an April 14, 2025 car accident. Erin Kelly applied for statutory accident benefits from The Commonwell Mutual Insurance Group, which denied her claim. But when Kelly brought the matter to the Tribunal, she did not challenge the denial of any specific benefit. She raised just one issue: was the insurer's lawyer in a conflict of interest?
Her concern was that the same lawyer who had conducted an Examination Under Oath in a priority dispute had now requested to conduct a second one for the purposes of determining Kelly's entitlement to benefits. Citing the Divisional Court's 2020 decision in The Personal Insurance Company v Jia, Kelly argued it was inappropriate for the insurer to use the same lawyer across both proceedings, and asked the Tribunal to bar the lawyer from representing the insurer for the second examination.
The Commonwell countered that the Tribunal had no authority to hear the case. Under section 280(1) of the Insurance Act, the Tribunal's role is limited to resolving disputes over a claimant's entitlement to accident benefits or the amount of those benefits. With no benefits in play, the insurer said, there was no jurisdiction.
Adjudicator Ulana Pahuta agreed. She acknowledged the Tribunal can address conflict of interest as a procedural fairness matter - but only when it arises inside an actual benefits dispute. Standing alone, it is not something the Tribunal can decide.
Pahuta drew a distinction from catastrophic impairment determinations, which the Tribunal has allowed as standalone issues in past decisions. Those have a direct bearing on what benefits a claimant can receive and are specifically contemplated under section 45 of the Schedule. A motion to disqualify opposing counsel, she found, carries no comparable link to benefits entitlement.
Kelly also pointed to a November 19, 2025 email from the insurer's counsel, who had written, "Should your client wish to seek direction from the LAT on this issue, we will cooperate fully." Pahuta was unpersuaded, noting that jurisdiction "does not depend on the cooperation or consent of counsel."
The application was dismissed and the file closed.
For insurers and claims professionals in Ontario, the ruling sends a clear message: the Tribunal will not serve as a venue for standalone disputes over lawyer conduct. But the question at the heart of Kelly's case - whether the same lawyer should conduct Examinations Under Oath at different stages of a claim - remains unanswered, and is likely to return when actual benefits are on the line.
