Ontario's Licence Appeal Tribunal has dismissed a claimant's bid to reconsider an attendant care benefit decision favouring Security National Insurance Company.
The claimant was injured in an August 20, 2020 automobile accident and sought benefits under Ontario's Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule. In a decision released March 25, 2026, the Tribunal found she was entitled to an attendant care benefit of $1,529.96 per month, but ordered no payment because she had not demonstrated the expense was incurred or deemed incurred. It also denied her requests for an award and interest.
On April 14, 2026, the claimant asked Vice-Chair Craig Mazerolle to reconsider the ruling, arguing the Tribunal had acted outside its jurisdiction, breached procedural fairness, and made errors of law or fact. She sought an order entitling her to $6,000 per month in attendant care benefits instead.
The claimant argued the Tribunal failed to grapple with several of her impairments, including vertigo, balance problems, radiculopathy and chronic pain. Mazerolle disagreed, finding the Tribunal had conducted a detailed review of her functional limits, including her dizziness and balance issues, and was not required to list every condition raised at the hearing.
She also challenged the Tribunal's finding that an occupational therapist had overstated her need for assistance with wrist splints, fingernail care and walking. Mazerolle found the Tribunal was entitled to draw reasonable inferences from the evidence, and that her remaining objections amounted to disagreement with how the record was weighed.
She raised similar concerns about the Tribunal's finding on supervisory care, where it had preferred one occupational therapist's opinion that she could safely respond to a home emergency over two other assessors it called outliers. She argued this breached procedural fairness and misstated what she had told an assessor about her ability to exit her home during an emergency. Mazerolle rejected both points, finding the Tribunal's assessment matched the broader medical record and that weighing expert opinions without psychiatric corroboration was not, on its own, unfair.
The claimant's final argument concerned whether her attendant care needs were deemed incurred. She pointed out the Tribunal had gotten the timeline of the insurer's examinations wrong relative to her catastrophic impairment designation, an error the insurer conceded. Mazerolle found the mistake would not have changed the result, since the Tribunal's reasoning rested on the insurer's reliance on four regulated healthcare professionals who unanimously found no attendant care benefits were required.
Mazerolle dismissed the reconsideration request in full. He noted the process is “not an opportunity for a party to relitigate its position where it disagrees” with the Tribunal's findings or its weighing of the evidence. The original decision, and Security National's denial of further payment, stands.
