Ontario Court of Appeal: Paralegals May Negotiate SABS Claims

In a decision concerning vehicular injury proceedings, the Ontario Court of Appeal in Ontario, Canada, ruled that there is no prohibition against a licensed paralegal negotiating the settlement of claims under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule (SABS) on behalf of a party under a disability.

This ruling significantly clarifies the scope of practice for licensed paralegals in Ontario, affirming their ability to negotiate SABS claims, even when the claimant is a person under a disability represented by a litigation guardian. For practitioners, this means that paralegals can continue to play a crucial and often more cost-effective role in the resolution of accident benefits disputes, potentially expanding access to justice for claimants. The decision also highlights the appellate court's vital function in correcting perceived errors in lower court interpretations of jurisdiction and professional scope, reinforcing the principle that the Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) does not hold exclusive jurisdiction over all aspects of SABS claims, particularly settlement negotiations that require court approval.

Legally, the case, *Borok v. Primmum Insurance Company, 2026 ONCA 748*, involved the interpretation of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule, O Reg 34/10 (SABS), and the Rules of Civil Procedure, RRO 1990, Reg 194, specifically concerning persons under disability and the role of litigation guardians. The initial application judge, Justice R. Lee Akazaki, had erred by concluding that the Superior Court lacked jurisdiction to approve a SABS settlement negotiated by a paralegal, believing it fell exclusively within the Licence Appeal Tribunal's (LAT) purview. The Ontario Court of Appeal, as the highest court in the province, clarified this jurisdictional boundary, affirming that while the LAT handles disputes, the negotiation of settlements, even for those under disability, can be conducted by licensed paralegals and subsequently approved by the Superior Court. This decision underscores the distinct, yet sometimes overlapping, roles of different legal professionals and tribunals within Ontario's comprehensive legal framework.

The key parties involved in this appellate decision are the appellant insurance company, Primmum Insurance Company, and the respondent, Borok, who was a person under disability represented by his son as litigation guardian. A licensed paralegal negotiated the resolution of the respondent’s SABS claims. The initial ruling was made by Justice R. Lee Akazaki of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, whose decision was subsequently appealed. The Ontario Court of Appeal delivered the clarifying judgment. The Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) is also a key entity in the broader context of SABS claims, though its exclusive jurisdiction over settlement approvals was the subject of the appeal.

Attorneys and paralegals in Ontario should note this decision as a clear affirmation of paralegals' authority to negotiate SABS claims, including those involving parties under disability. This reinforces the importance of understanding the distinct, yet sometimes overlapping, roles of different legal professionals and tribunals in the province. Lawyers representing clients in motor vehicle accident cases should be aware that licensed paralegals can competently handle the negotiation phase of SABS claims, and that such settlements, when involving persons under disability, can be brought before the Superior Court for approval. This clarification may influence strategic decisions regarding client representation, cost management, and the division of labour in personal injury litigation. The excerpt indicates the application judge erred, implying the paralegal's negotiation was permissible, but the final disposition of the settlement approval itself is not explicitly reported.