Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Timeliness of the appellant’s notice of appeal and whether a five-month delay to seek an extension could be justified by age, medical condition, and self-representation
• Scope of an appeal from the Licence Appeal Tribunal limited strictly to questions of law, where the underlying LAT reasons are predominantly factual findings and discretionary determinations
• Adequacy of the appellant’s explanation and evidentiary support for delay, including the absence of medical documentation to substantiate claimed impairments affecting procedural compliance
• Characterization of the LAT adjudicator’s conclusions on catastrophic impairment, non-earner benefits, and various medical/rehabilitation and miscellaneous expenses as findings of fact, largely insulating them from appellate review
• The role of prejudice and the absence of demonstrable prejudice to the insurer in the context of a late appeal
• Weighing of the extension-of-time factors as a whole, with particular emphasis on the weak merits of the proposed appeal leading to dismissal of the motion

Background and facts of the case

Noorullah (also referred to as Noora) Khatir was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits from Desjardins Insurance under Ontario’s Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule (SABS), O. Reg. 34/10. He applied to the Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) for a declaration that he was catastrophically impaired and for a range of benefits, including non-earner benefits, medical and rehabilitation benefits, and reimbursement of various expenses. The LAT adjudicator dismissed his application in a decision dated January 25, 2025, holding that he was not entitled to the claimed benefits. The adjudicator’s key determinations were that he had not established catastrophic impairment, that a caregiver benefit was never properly claimed, that his functional abilities were not materially different post-accident for non-earner benefit purposes, and that several treatment and expense items were either not accident-related, incurred without prior insurer approval as required, or related to property damage that fell outside the SABS.

Following the LAT decision, Khatir sought to appeal to the Divisional Court. Under the Licence Appeal Tribunal Act, he could only appeal on a question of law. He was initially self-represented and filed a notice of appeal on February 14, 2025, within 30 days of the LAT decision. However, he did not properly perfect or advance the appeal in accordance with the procedural rules, and ultimately brought a written motion dated July 22, 2025, asking the Divisional Court to extend the time to bring his appeal. He said that his advanced age, catastrophic medical condition arising from the accident, lack of legal knowledge, and self-represented status hindered his ability to navigate the appeal process. He later retained counsel in May 2025, by which time several months had passed.

Desjardins Insurance opposed the extension, relying in particular on the absence of a persuasive explanation for the lengthy delay and the lack of legal merit in the proposed appeal, given that the LAT decision was grounded almost entirely in factual findings and discretionary assessments. There was no evidence that Desjardins had suffered concrete prejudice from the delay, and the insurer did not argue such prejudice.

Procedural posture and legal framework

The motion was heard in writing by the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, Divisional Court, before Justice Trimble. The issue was not the underlying entitlement to accident benefits but whether the court should extend the deadline for the appeal from the LAT decision. Rule 61.04 of the Rules of Civil Procedure required the notice of appeal to be served and filed within 30 days of the order under appeal; here, that meant by February 24, 2025. Khatir’s motion to extend time, dated July 22, 2025, came almost five months after that deadline.

In considering whether to extend time, the court applied the well-established multi-factor test from appellate jurisprudence, including Enbridge Gas Distribution Inc. v. Froese, Liu v. Chan, and Home Trust Company v. Pitters. The relevant considerations are: (i) whether there was an intention to appeal within the appeal period; (ii) the length of the delay and whether it is satisfactorily explained; (iii) prejudice to the responding party; and (iv) the merits of the proposed appeal. These factors are weighed together; they are not strict hurdles, but the overarching question is whether the justice of the case requires an extension. The court emphasized that the merits factor can be decisive on its own where the proposed appeal is clearly lacking in substance.

The statutory framework for the underlying dispute is also central. Under sections 11(1) and 11(3) of the Licence Appeal Tribunal Act, a party may appeal a LAT decision to the Divisional Court only on a question of law. This sharply limits the court’s oversight of the LAT: factual findings and most discretionary decisions based on those facts are not generally open to review in such an appeal.

Policy terms and benefits in dispute

Although the Divisional Court endorsement focuses on procedure and appellate standards, it briefly details the types of statutory accident benefits that were in contention before the LAT and how the adjudicator approached them. The benefits and issues, grounded in the SABS (O. Reg. 34/10), included:

Catastrophic impairment
The appellant sought a declaration of catastrophic impairment, a threshold that would potentially open up enhanced benefits under the SABS. The LAT adjudicator found that he failed to attend the insurer’s examination (IE) that Desjardins had arranged, despite proper notice of the appointment. The adjudicator also concluded that the medical evidence submitted by the appellant did not support a catastrophic impairment finding. Both points were treated as factual determinations concerning compliance with insurer medical assessments and the sufficiency of medical evidence.

Caregiver benefit
The decision notes that a caregiver benefit was not actually claimed in the ordinary course of handling the accident benefits file. The insurer was never notified of any intention to claim this benefit, and it was raised for the first time at the hearing. Because Desjardins had never had the opportunity to assess or deny such a claim, the LAT found it lacked jurisdiction to award the caregiver benefit. This is rooted in the SABS process, where benefits must be claimed, and the insurer must respond, before the tribunal can adjudicate entitlement. The court characterizes this as a jurisdictional conclusion built on factual premises about what was or was not claimed and denied.

Non-earner benefit
Non-earner benefits are designed to compensate for a substantial inability to engage in normal activities of daily living post-accident. The LAT adjudicator found as a matter of fact that the appellant’s abilities to perform normal tasks were no different after the accident than before. On this basis, the non-earner benefit was denied. This is a classic functional-assessment finding, turning on the evaluation of evidence about the claimant’s daily activities and limitations, which is not a pure question of law.

Medical, rehabilitation and chiropractic expenses
The appellant claimed medical and rehabilitation benefits, including chiropractic treatment. The adjudicator concluded that some of the chiropractic treatment related to symptoms from other injuries rather than the motor vehicle accident, and thus was not covered as accident-related treatment. More broadly, miscellaneous other expenses were disallowed on multiple factual grounds: they were not causally related to the accident, they were incurred without prior submission to the insurer for approval as required by the SABS, or they involved property damage outside the scope of the SABS benefits. These determinations reflect policy-term application: the SABS requires that expenses be reasonable, necessary, causally connected to the accident, and generally pre-approved where mandated. The tribunal’s findings were that those criteria were not met on the facts.

Interest and special award claims
In the proposed appeal, the appellant also requested an order granting interest and/or an award under section 10 of Ontario Regulation 664, as well as reimbursement of specific expenses under the OCF forms. The endorsement records these as part of the relief sought but does not detail any independent legal error on those points. Again, the decision suggests that the LAT’s determinations on these heads were either factual or discretionary, flowing from its primary view that the underlying entitlement claims failed.

Assessment of the extension factors and merits of the appeal

Justice Trimble accepted that the appellant did have an intention to appeal within the prescribed period, pointing to the notice of appeal filed on February 14, 2025, while he was still self-represented. Intention to appeal therefore weighed in his favour. The court also found that there was no real prejudice to Desjardins from the delay, as the insurer had not argued any concrete prejudice. That factor also did not count against the appellant.

However, the length and explanation of the delay were problematic. The motion was brought just under five months after the last day to appeal. The appellant offered a general statement that he lacked legal representation, tried to pursue the process to the best of his limited understanding, and that his advanced age, medical condition, and lack of legal knowledge contributed to a misunderstanding and misapplication of the procedures. The court described this as a “bald statement”: he did not explain the nature of his impairments or how they specifically affected his ability to file a notice of appeal or retain counsel on time, and he attached no medical documentation to support his claims. As a result, the explanation for the delay weighed heavily against granting an extension.

The decisive factor was the merits of the proposed appeal. Justice Trimble stressed that under the Licence Appeal Tribunal Act, only questions of law can be appealed. In Khatir’s case, the LAT adjudicator’s reasons for dismissing his application for catastrophic impairment status and the various claimed benefits were all characterized as factual findings or discretionary calls anchored in factual determinations. Findings about whether he attended an IE, whether medical evidence supported catastrophic status, whether a caregiver benefit was ever properly claimed, the nature and extent of his functional limitations for non-earner purposes, and whether particular treatments and expenses were accident-related or properly pre-approved were all treated as matters of fact. While certain discretionary decisions could, in theory, be appealed, they attract a high degree of deference and offered little realistic prospect of success here.

Justice Trimble noted that the appellant’s proposed notice of appeal requested a sweeping set of declarations concerning catastrophic impairment, non-earner benefits, medical and rehabilitation benefits, reimbursement of expenses, and interest and awards under O. Reg. 664, but the appeal materials did not meaningfully grapple with the legal limits of appellate review. The appellant did not address the core problem: that the LAT decision rested almost entirely on non-appealable factual determinations. In light of this, the court concluded that the merits of the proposed appeal were “highly questionable.” When weighed with the other factors, the weak merits became the strongest reason to deny an extension.

Outcome, successful party, and monetary result

Balancing all the factors together, the Divisional Court held that justice did not require an extension of time. The appellant’s intention to appeal and the absence of prejudice to Desjardins were outweighed by his inadequate explanation for the five-month delay and, most significantly, by the lack of legal merit in the proposed appeal, given the statutory limitation to questions of law and the LAT’s fact-based reasons. Justice Trimble therefore dismissed the motion to extend time to appeal.

As a consequence, the LAT decision remains in force, and the appellant’s attempt to challenge the denial of catastrophic impairment status and related SABS benefits does not proceed further in the Divisional Court. Desjardins Insurance is expressly recognized as the successful party on the motion and is presumptively entitled to its costs. However, the endorsement does not fix a specific dollar amount. Instead, the judge directs the parties to attempt to agree on costs; failing agreement, Desjardins is to deliver brief written submissions by March 27, 2026, and the appellant by April 10, 2026, after which the court would determine the quantum. Because no numerical figure is set out in this decision, the total amount of any monetary award, costs, or damages ordered in favour of Desjardins cannot be determined from this judgment.