In Crooks v TD General Insurance Company, 2026 CanLII 45612 (ON LAT), TD General Insurance won a reconsideration at Ontario's Licence Appeal Tribunal after a Vice-Chair found the original decision's reasons fell short.
The Tribunal released its reconsideration ruling on May 11, 2026, cancelling a January 14, 2026 decision that had removed applicant Yanique Crooks from the Minor Injury Guideline following a December 5, 2021 accident. The matter will now be reheard by a different adjudicator based on the existing record.
For insurers handling statutory accident benefits disputes, the ruling reinforces how much weight the Tribunal places on having submissions reflected in written reasons - and how the absence of that engagement can unwind an outcome.
The original decision had removed Crooks from the MIG on the basis of an accident-related concussion and granted her requests for five treatment plans, interest, and an award. Under section 18(1) of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule, medical and rehabilitation benefits are limited to $3,500 if the insured person sustains impairments that are predominantly a minor injury. Section 3(1) defines minor injury as one or more of a sprain, strain, whiplash associated disorder, contusion, abrasion, laceration or subluxation, including any clinically associated sequelae.
TD General Insurance filed its reconsideration request on February 3, 2026, arguing the Tribunal's reasons did not address its MIG position. Vice-Chair Craig Mazerolle agreed.
The MIG analysis in the original decision contained no mention of the insurer's position or evidence. That mattered because TD had taken the position that the applicant's headaches were not accident-related, and ongoing headaches were one of the key symptoms the Tribunal had relied on to remove her from the MIG. The applicant argued the reconsideration request amounted to a "disagreement with the outcome of the decision." Mazerolle rejected that framing, finding TD's MIG arguments formed a key part of its defense against one of the central issues in dispute.
The Vice-Chair also flagged what the insurer described as templated language in the original decision's analysis of two treatment plans for assessments. Passages dealing with a psychological assessment and a chronic pain assessment contained unfilled placeholders where reasons should have appeared, suggesting the adjudicator had ordered payment without fully justifying the conclusions. Drawing on the Supreme Court's guidance in Vavilov and Baker, Mazerolle found the original reasons did not meet the standard for sufficiency.
The Tribunal also noted that TD's initial reconsideration submissions ran 12 pages, exceeding the 10-page limit under Rule 18.1. Mazerolle considered the submissions anyway, finding the page breach did not affect his assessment because the sufficiency of reasons argument appeared within the first half of the filing.
Under Rule 18.4, the original decision is cancelled. The rehearing will rely on the parties' evidence and submissions from the written hearing, with no fresh evidence or new arguments. TD had asked that the rehearing be conducted by a Vice-Chair rather than a Member, but Mazerolle noted the assignment of adjudicators remains within the Tribunal's prerogative.
