Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• The applicant sought to bring tort claims related to a motor vehicle accident through the Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT), which has no jurisdiction to award damages.

• The LAT is limited by statute to resolving disputes about entitlement to Statutory Accident Benefits (SABS) and cannot hear tort claims or award general or punitive damages.

• The second LAT application attempted to reframe previously decided SABS matters under the guise of civil torts.

• The LAT correctly declined to process the second application and dismissed a request for reconsideration.

• The Divisional Court applied Rule 2.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, finding the proceedings frivolous and a misuse of court process.

• The court emphasized the prohibition on collateral attacks and reaffirmed the limited jurisdiction of the LAT.

Background and procedural history

Neila Paesano was involved in a motor vehicle accident in 2018 and filed an application with the Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) for Statutory Accident Benefits (SABS). That application proceeded through a full hearing and resulted in a final LAT decision in 2023, in which the adjudicator resolved numerous benefit-related issues. One claim for income replacement benefits was not addressed because Ms. Paesano failed to apply for them in time. Although she had a right of appeal, Ms. Paesano chose instead to file an application for judicial review, which the Divisional Court dismissed in 2025. The court found the LAT decision to be reasonable, well-reasoned, and procedurally fair.

Despite this, Ms. Paesano submitted a second application to the LAT in early 2025. This time, she named not only her insurer, Coseco Insurance Company, but also non-insurer respondents, including three insurance adjusters, two medical professionals, and a service provider. Many of these individuals had participated in the earlier LAT hearing as witnesses. In this new application, Ms. Paesano sought over $100 million in damages and asserted civil tort claims including conspiracy, breach of the duty of good faith, and intentional interference with economic relations. However, she expressly stated that she was not seeking additional SABS.

LAT response and court proceedings

The LAT refused to process the second application, citing a lack of jurisdiction to award the remedies sought. It explained that under section 280 of the Insurance Act, the LAT is empowered to adjudicate entitlement to SABS and the quantification of those benefits, but has no authority to hear tort claims or award compensatory or punitive damages. The applicant's attempt to seek non-SABS-related damages against both insurer and non-insurer parties was therefore outside LAT’s mandate. Her request for reconsideration was denied.

Ms. Paesano then commenced proceedings in the Divisional Court, seeking judicial review and an appeal of the LAT’s refusal to process the second application. The respondents requested dismissal of the case under Rule 2.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, which allows early termination of proceedings that are frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process.

Analysis and dismissal

The Divisional Court agreed with the LAT’s assessment. It held that the LAT's jurisdiction is narrowly defined by statute and does not include authority to adjudicate tort claims or award general damages. While the applicant tried to avoid the appearance of seeking more SABS by disclaiming entitlement to them, the court found that her claims were inextricably linked to the earlier LAT proceeding and her dissatisfaction with its outcome. This, the court found, was a veiled attempt to revisit the LAT’s 2023 decision through improper procedural channels.

The court also rejected the applicant’s reliance on case law and Superior Court decisions that did not address the key issue of remedial jurisdiction. It noted that the existence of a no-fault benefits regime under the Insurance Act precludes the LAT from offering remedies beyond its statutory framework, including special awards, interest, and costs in specific situations. Ms. Paesano had declined to pursue such remedies in her original LAT application.

Conclusion

The Divisional Court dismissed the proceedings under Rule 2.1 as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process. It concluded that Ms. Paesano was improperly using the LAT and court proceedings to re-argue issues that had already been decided, without raising any new grounds within the jurisdiction of the tribunal or the court. The ruling reaffirms that the LAT cannot be used to pursue civil tort claims and that litigants must respect statutory limits when selecting forums for their legal disputes.