Ontario's Licence Appeal Tribunal has cancelled a decision denying accident benefits, ordering CUMIS General Insurance back to a rehearing over fairness concerns.
The reconsideration decision in Domchik v. CUMIS General Insurance Company, released May 1, 2026, by Vice-Chair E. Louise Logan, scraps the tribunal's August 6, 2025 ruling against Felix Domchik and sends the case back for a fresh hearing before a different adjudicator. At issue is what Logan called a material breach of procedural fairness - language that should land squarely with any insurer handling accident benefits disputes in Ontario.
Domchik was in an automobile accident on June 19, 2020, and was later denied benefits by CUMIS under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule. He took the dispute to the LAT, seeking an income replacement benefit, a physiotherapy treatment plan, interest, and an award.
The case unraveled in December 2024. With written submissions due on December 18, 2024, Domchik's lawyer removed himself from the file on December 16 - two days before the deadline. The next day, a family member emailed the tribunal's Case Management Officer, explaining that Domchik's English was poor and asking for an extension so he could find new counsel or figure out his next steps.
A second email followed on January 6, 2025, this time asking the adjudicator to consider materials already filed in the application and at the preliminary issue hearing. The Case Management Officer replied the next day, telling the family that "all pertinent submissions/documents will mist [sic] assuredly be reviewed" once an adjudicator was assigned.
That reassurance did not hold. In its August 6, 2025 decision, the tribunal found Domchik had not filed submissions for the substantive hearing and denied him the income replacement benefit, the physiotherapy plan, interest, and the award.
Domchik filed his reconsideration request on February 17, 2026 - 175 days past the deadline. The tribunal granted an extension and dug into the merits.
CUMIS pushed back. The insurer argued that Domchik had every chance to participate: he knew the deadline, did not file submissions, did not reply, did not seek an adjournment despite being given a link to the form, and never moved to alter the timelines. Ineffective representation, the insurer argued, is not a basis for reconsideration.
Logan disagreed. The family's emails - asking for more time and pointing to earlier filings - appear never to have reached the hearing adjudicator. The original decision had stated there was "no further correspondence from the applicant" and "no indication" he intended to obtain new counsel. Logan saw a fairness gap the tribunal could close.
She leaned on Fernandez v. Commonwell Mutual Insurance, 2024 ONSC 5180, where the Divisional Court found a self-represented claimant with limited capacity to navigate the accident benefits system was denied procedural fairness when the LAT refused an adjournment after her solicitor-client relationship collapsed. Logan flagged that Domchik had limited English, used a Russian interpreter during a neuropsychological exam, and showed indications of psychological impairment.
The decision was cancelled. The substantive issues will be reheard before a different adjudicator.
