Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• The applicant attempted to pursue tort claims against non-insurer parties through the Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT), which lacks jurisdiction over such matters.

• LAT is statutorily limited to adjudicating Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule (SABS) disputes and cannot grant general damages or declaratory relief.

• The application was dismissed as an impermissible collateral attack on a final LAT decision made in 2023.

• Despite stating she was not seeking SABS, the applicant's claims related directly to the administration of SABS, which must be addressed through proper statutory channels.

• Rule 2.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure was applied to dismiss the case as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.

• LAT and Divisional Court decisions were consistent with Ontario appellate jurisprudence on the limited remedial scope of administrative tribunals.

Background and procedural history

Harpreet Grewal was injured in a motor vehicle accident in 2016 and initially applied to the Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) for Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule (SABS) compensation. That first LAT proceeding resulted in a final decision in 2023, which was upheld by the Divisional Court in 2024. In that earlier litigation, Ms. Grewal withdrew most of her claims and was denied leave to add a punitive damages claim. The LAT held it had no jurisdiction to award punitive damages, and the Divisional Court affirmed that conclusion, noting that the LAT has exclusive jurisdiction over SABS claims but only the remedial powers expressly granted by statute.

In 2025, Ms. Grewal initiated a second LAT application. This time, she named not only the insurer, Peel Mutual Insurance Company, but also non-insurer parties including health professionals, a service provider, an insurance adjuster, and others who were allegedly involved in the insurer’s handling of her claim. Ms. Grewal asserted several tort claims including intrusion upon seclusion, intimidation, civil fraud, and intentional interference with economic relations, and sought approximately $30 million in damages. She specifically stated that she was not seeking SABS in this new LAT application.

Tribunal and court analysis

The LAT dismissed the second application on the basis that it lacked jurisdiction to award the remedies sought, which included general damages and declaratory relief. It reiterated that its mandate under the Insurance Act and the SABS does not extend to tort claims or civil damages. The Vice-Chair emphasized that some of the conduct alleged by Ms. Grewal could, in theory, form the basis for a "special award" under section 10 of the SABS for insurer misconduct, but Ms. Grewal explicitly disclaimed any such relief.

The LAT also denied a request for reconsideration. Ms. Grewal then brought these matters before the Divisional Court, seeking judicial review and appealing the LAT’s decision. The respondents asked the court to invoke Rule 2.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, which permits early dismissal of proceedings that are frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process. The court issued a notice under Rule 2.1 and invited submissions.

Dismissal under Rule 2.1

The court found that the proceedings were clearly abusive. It held that Ms. Grewal was attempting to use the LAT—a tribunal with a limited statutory mandate—to pursue claims that could only be brought in a civil court, if at all. Despite her assertion that she was not pursuing further SABS, her claims were fundamentally linked to the administration of her SABS file and thus tied to the same factual matrix as the earlier proceedings. As a result, the court characterized her actions as either an impermissible attempt to sidestep the LAT’s statutory limits or a collateral attack on a final decision that had already been upheld on appeal.

The court emphasized that LAT does not have inherent jurisdiction and cannot expand its authority beyond what is provided in the legislation. Section 280 of the Insurance Act confers jurisdiction to the LAT to resolve SABS entitlement issues but does not empower the tribunal to adjudicate civil torts or award damages beyond the statutory framework.

Conclusion

The Divisional Court dismissed the proceedings under Rule 2.1 as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process. It confirmed that tribunals like LAT are bound by their enabling statutes and cannot be used to circumvent established legal channels. Ms. Grewal’s attempt to relitigate or repackage prior issues as tort claims in a forum lacking jurisdiction was rejected as a clear misuse of process.