An Ontario tribunal has cancelled its own ruling against a claimant after finding it had no authority to issue it in the first place.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal originally ruled on June 1, 2026, that the claimant was barred from pursuing accident benefits from Echelon General Insurance Company, finding she had not submitted her application for benefits within the time required under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule. The underlying claim stemmed from a December 2, 2012 accident involving the applicant's mother.

The applicant sought reconsideration under Rule 18.2(a) of the Tribunal's rules, arguing the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to rule at all. She asked the Tribunal to cancel the decision and treat May 29, 2026 as the effective date of her withdrawal. She said she had sent a completed and signed Notice of Withdrawal to both the Tribunal and Echelon on that date, three days before the June 1 decision was released.

In a reconsideration decision released September 3, 2026, Vice-Chair Craig Mazerolle agreed. After reviewing emails the applicant provided, he found she had properly filed the withdrawal notice before the original ruling came out. Once the Tribunal received it, he found, it no longer had jurisdiction over the dispute, even if the adjudicator who wrote that decision was unaware of the withdrawal at the time.

Echelon opposed the reconsideration on several grounds. It argued the Insurance Act and the Statutory Powers Procedure Act gave the Tribunal broad authority to issue the decision, that jurisdiction continued because the Tribunal had not yet issued a Closure Letter confirming the withdrawal, and that the applicant had not shown any prior tribunal decisions supporting the idea that a withdrawn matter falls outside the Tribunal's authority. It also argued she had not shown the decision caused her any actual prejudice.

Mazerolle rejected each argument. He found Closure Letters are administrative notices confirming receipt of a withdrawal, not adjudicative orders, so a matter closes once a complete and signed withdrawal form is filed, regardless of whether a Closure Letter has gone out. He also found the applicant did not need to show prejudice, since a tribunal acting without jurisdiction is sufficient grounds for cancellation on its own.

The Vice-Chair further found that although the applicant cited limited tribunal case law, her reliance on the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in Chandler v. Alberta Association of Architects supported her argument that a decision-maker cannot exercise jurisdiction over a matter that is no longer live before it.

The Tribunal granted the reconsideration request, cancelled the original decision, and closed the file, finding no rehearing was necessary.