Ontario’s auto insurance shift to the LAT and access to justice: Consistency, oversight and reform

Law360 Canada (March 6, 2026, 3:11 PM EST) --

Harlan Pottins

Ontario’s decision to move most statutory accident benefits disputes from the courts to the Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) has undoubtedly reshaped accident benefits litigation culture, including how quickly disputes move and how parties evaluate risk. The question of whether those changes have improved access to justice for claimants or simply redistributed systemic pressure into a forum remains.

Part one of this series (Has Ontario’s auto insurance shift to the LAT improved access to justice or restricted it?) analyzed this shift from an access-to-justice perspective, looking at procedural differences and the features of accident benefits litigation that make the shift especially significant. In part two, we continue the discussion by examining a necessary feature of access to justice: consistency.

Consistency and predictability: An access-to-justice feature, not a luxury

In a high-volume adjudicative environment, consistency is a practical access-to-justice requirement. Predictable decision-making allows parties to assess exposure, narrow issues and settle disputes earlier. Inconsistent outcomes increase cost by encouraging parties to litigate more issues, preserve more arguments and seek reconsideration or review more frequently.

In the LAT context, one recurring critique is variability in outcomes across similar fact patterns, particularly in disputes involving medical evidence and functional impairment. Even modest inconsistency can have system-wide effects, including higher transaction costs and more contested steps, because parties cannot confidently predict how evidence will be evaluated.

Consistency is also linked to procedural design. A process that tends toward written records and compressed timelines can inadvertently amplify variability because adjudicators may be deciding cases on uneven evidentiary inputs. Where records are thin or incomplete, reasonable decision-makers can diverge more often.

Oversight and the role of the courts after Yatar

Appellate oversight is another area where the tribunal model has altered the access-to-justice landscape. Court adjudication generates binding precedent and provides a relatively stable pathway for error correction. Tribunal decisions typically receive deference and operate within narrower statutory appeal rights, with judicial review functioning as a discretionary supervisory mechanism.

The Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in Yatar v. TD Insurance Meloche Monnex, 2024 SCC 8 clarified that a limited statutory right of appeal does not, on its own, eliminate access to judicial review for issues outside the scope of the appeal, although the remedy remains discretionary. This clarification matters for accident benefits litigants because it confirms that judicial review remains part of the oversight architecture, even where the statute limits appeals to questions of law.

At the same time, the decision underscores a practical reality: oversight is not automatic, and the pathway to meaningful correction and system guidance remains constrained compared to court-based litigation. This places more weight on first-instance adjudication quality and internal consistency mechanisms, because fewer disputes will generate binding guidance that helps the system converge on stable standards.

Has access to justice improved or been reallocated?

With the benefit of time, two propositions can coexist without contradiction.

The tribunal model has delivered administrative scalability and has demonstrated that scheduling performance can improve through targeted reforms. Many disputes can be managed proportionately within a tribunal process, especially where the issues are narrow and documentary.

The model has also created persistent barriers in cases that are medically complex, credibility-sensitive or record-intensive. In those disputes, procedural limitations can restrict the claimant’s ability to build and test the evidence required for a reliable determination. Limited oversight can compound the problem by making it harder to correct errors and reduce variability across recurring issues.

Access to justice is therefore not answered by asking whether the tribunal is faster than court. The better question is whether the process is matched to the dispute. A system that is fast but produces fragile outcomes does not ultimately reduce litigation. It relocates conflict into reconsiderations, judicial review applications and more entrenched settlement positions.

What reform could look like as the system matures

If reform is needed, it need not involve a return to court-based adjudication. A mature tribunal model can be strengthened through targeted, practical adjustments.


Ontario’s shift to the LAT has now matured into the settled structure of accident benefits litigation. The next phase should focus less on whether the tribunal model exists and more on whether its procedure, evidentiary tools and consistency mechanisms are aligned with what accident benefits disputes actually are: medically driven, time-sensitive conflicts with real consequences for recovery and daily functioning.

This is part two of a two-part series. Part one: Has Ontario’s auto insurance shift to the LAT improved access to justice or restricted it?

Harlan Pottins is the managing partner of HSP Law and a personal injury lawyer with more than 15 years of experience in personal injury litigation, civil litigation and disability benefits. He represents injured individuals and claimants navigating complex insurance and disability disputes across Canada, with a focus on tort claims and long-term disability matters. Harlan is known for a practical, client-first approach grounded in thorough file development and strategic advocacy.

The opinions expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the author’s firm, its clients, LexisNexis Canada, Law360 Canada or any of its or their respective affiliates. This article is for general information purposes and is not intended to be and should not be taken as legal advice.

Interested in writing for us? To learn more about how you can add your voice to Law360 Canada, contact Analysis Editor Yvette Trancoso at Yvette.Trancoso-barrett@lexisnexis.ca or call 905-415-5811.