Late Withdrawals at the LAT: When Do Costs Arise and When Do Files Stay Open?
The Licence Appeal Tribunal (hereinafter “LAT”) operates under a clear mandate: to provide fair, efficient, and accessible adjudication of accident-benefit disputes. Despite this, one area remains a frequent source of confusion for both Applicants and Respondents: the procedural and strategic consequences of withdrawals.
Key questions regularly arise:
The following analysis provides a detailed explanation of the LAT’s approach and its implications for effective advocacy.
Rule 3.2 grants the Tribunal significant discretion to manage its own process. It may vary or waive procedural rules, issue practice directions, and make orders preventing abuses. This flexibility underlies much of the Tribunal’s reasoning on withdrawals.
Rules 19.1 to 19.6 govern costs. A party may seek costs only when another has acted unreasonably, frivolously, vexatiously, or in bad faith. The Tribunal may require written submissions outlining the amount sought and the conduct at issue, and it evaluates seriousness, breaches of orders, interference with efficiency, prejudice, and the effect on access to the system. Even when granted, costs are capped at $1,000.00 per full day of attendance.
The jurisprudence demonstrates that the LAT interprets these provisions narrowly and awards costs only in exceptional cases. Withdrawals on their own do not meet the threshold.
A strong and consistent message emerges from LAT decisions.
“A withdrawal of an application alone will rarely, if ever, be a sufficient basis on which the Tribunal will make a cost order.”
Similarly, in K.G. v. Aviva, the Tribunal stressed that punishing an Applicant for withdrawing could discourage access to justice, especially where additional medical information emerges after filing.
These cases confirm that costs and sanctions are reserved for truly egregious conduct. Mere inconvenience, frustration, or inefficiency is not enough.
The most critical principle arising from LAT case law is that a withdrawal almost always closes the file unless the Respondent has outstanding issues that must still be adjudicated. This is the single most important procedural exception.
The Tribunal’s leading decision on this point is Hussein v. Wawanesa, 18-011887/AABS. There, the Applicant withdrew after lengthy proceedings, but the Tribunal had not yet addressed the Respondent’s repayment claim. Because the repayment issue remained unresolved, the Tribunal reopened the file.
Several lessons emerge from Hussein:
The LAT awards costs only when conduct is unreasonable, frivolous, vexatious, or in bad faith. These are strict requirements. Applicants may withdraw suddenly, inconveniently, or after extensive preparation by the Respondent, yet still not meet the threshold.
The clearest example of a cost award is Bablak v. Gore Mutual, 20-002022/AABS. The Applicant emailed withdrawing the morning of a scheduled five-day hearing without filing a Notice of Withdrawal. This deprived the Tribunal of the ability to manage the process and left the Respondent prejudiced after preparing witnesses and incurring expenses.
Adjudicator Watt awarded the maximum permitted costs of $1,000.00. Even so, the award was based not merely on timing but on the failure to file a mandatory Notice of Withdrawal and the exceptional prejudice caused.
This case illustrates that costs may follow where:
K.G. v. Aviva Insurance Company of Canada, 19-006535/AABS (hereinafter “K.G.”), concerned a motor vehicle accident that occurred on April 27, 2016. The Applicant initially brought a LAT application on November 1, 2018 disputing denials of an income replacement benefit, an attendant care benefit, and four medical and rehabilitation benefits. A written hearing was scheduled for June 10, 2019 and the parties exchanged submissions. Three days before the hearing, on June 7, 2019, the Applicant filed a Notice of Withdrawal, and the Tribunal closed the file.
Eleven days later, on June 18, 2019, the Applicant filed a new Tribunal application raising the same four medical and rehabilitation benefits, though not the IRB or ACB previously in issue. At the case conference, the Respondent argued that this re-filing, after a last-minute withdrawal, constituted an abuse of process and sought dismissal of the application along with costs under Rule 19.1 of the Tribunal’s Common Rules of Practice and Procedure.
Adjudicator Sandeep Johal rejected the Respondent’s position. Relying on the statutory framework and Rules 3.4 and 19.1 to 19.5, the Tribunal held that the Respondent bore the onus of proving that the Applicant acted frivolously, vexatiously, unreasonably, or in bad faith. The Tribunal distinguished M.O. v. Unifund, noting that in K.G. the second application was filed 11 days later, was not identical (because IRB and ACB were removed), and followed the Applicant’s acquisition of new medical information, including chronic pain and hospital records, on which the Respondent continued adjusting the file. The Tribunal emphasized that no issue had been adjudicated on the merits, and that allowing re-filing in such circumstances promotes access to justice.
Finding no course of conduct amounting to abuse of process, and reaffirming that a withdrawal alone will rarely, if ever, justify costs, the Tribunal dismissed the Respondent’s request for both dismissal and costs.
The key takeaway is that the mere withdrawal and re-filing of an application, absent evidence of bad faith, frivolousness, or vexatious conduct, is not an abuse of process and will not on its own justify a costs award against an Applicant.
16-000474 v. Aviva Insurance Company involved an application for accident benefits arising from a June 10, 2015 motor vehicle accident. After the Respondent denied certain physiotherapy and income replacement benefits, the Applicant appealed to the Licence Appeal Tribunal. A case conference was held on July 27, 2016, with written submissions due August 15 and a written/in-person hearing set for August 30.
A key issue was the Applicant’s late Case Conference Summary, which was served only one day before the case conference instead of the required ten days. Although the Respondent objected, the Tribunal found that while “not ideal,” the late filing was not so egregious as to justify costs, particularly because the case conference adjudicator gave the Respondent time to review it (paras. 14–16).
Another significant concern was the delay in initial submissions. The Applicant missed the August 15 deadline due in part to a scheduling error by counsel’s staff and because the Tribunal did not send the case conference report and order until August 16, one day after submissions were due (paras. 20–23). Counsel immediately wrote to the Tribunal upon receiving the order, explaining the conflict and requesting an adjournment due to a long-scheduled family vacation. The Respondent opposed the adjournment, and the Tribunal ultimately denied it. Taking these circumstances together, the Tribunal held it could not find the Applicant’s conduct “unreasonable, frivolous, vexatious or in bad faith” (para. 24).
Ultimately, the Applicant withdrew the application after the adjournment was denied. The Tribunal cited Executive Chair Lamoureux, emphasizing that “a withdrawal of an application alone will rarely, if ever, be a sufficient basis on which the Tribunal will make a cost order” and that mere inconvenience to the Respondent is insufficient (para. 25). The Vice-Chair accepted that, without an adjournment, the Applicant could not assemble necessary productions or affidavit evidence (paras. 27–28). As the decision explains, “if the Applicant did not withdraw her application and proceeded with the hearing, she would not be able to submit all the evidence she intended to rely upon,” and therefore “did not act unreasonably in withdrawing” (para. 28).
Given the late Tribunal processes, shortened timelines, and the Applicant’s explained difficulties, the Tribunal concluded that the Respondent had not proven any conduct warranting costs. The motion for costs was dismissed.
The decision in Hussein v. Wawanesa confirms that the LAT will reopen a file only when essential Respondent issues remain unaddressed. There, a repayment issue had been explicitly raised and included in the Case Conference Report. The Applicant later withdrew and the Tribunal administratively closed the file without addressing the repayment issue.
The Respondent moved to reopen the matter, and the LAT agreed. The Tribunal recognized that part of the confusion had been caused by its own administrative actions and held that neither party should be penalized with costs.
This case provides a crucial blueprint for Respondents. If they do not formally raise and preserve their issues, they will lose their ability to litigate them once a withdrawal is filed.
Given the strict limits on costs and the powerful legal effect of a Notice of Withdrawal, Respondents must proactively preserve their rights.
The following steps are essential:
In the fall of 2025, our firm dealt with a case similar to Bablak. The Applicant filed a Notice of Withdrawal on the Friday before a Tuesday hearing and copied the Respondent’s lawyer. The Respondent had already prepared witnesses and incurred costs. When we contacted the Tribunal to request reopening, the LAT advised that because a formal Notice of Withdrawal had been filed, the matter was moot. Since no Respondent issues had been preserved in the Case Conference Report, the Tribunal no longer had jurisdiction to hear any motion, including costs.
This experience reinforced a central procedural truth. A withdrawal closes the file unless Respondent issues remain outstanding. The Tribunal cannot reopen a matter unless it still has an adjudicative mandate.
Three key lessons emerge from the jurisprudence and practice experience:
Key questions regularly arise:
- When does a withdrawal close the file?
- When will a matter remain open?
- When can Respondents obtain costs?
- What must Respondents do to preserve their own issues?
The following analysis provides a detailed explanation of the LAT’s approach and its implications for effective advocacy.
What the LAT Rules Say About Withdrawals and Costs
Rule 3.2 grants the Tribunal significant discretion to manage its own process. It may vary or waive procedural rules, issue practice directions, and make orders preventing abuses. This flexibility underlies much of the Tribunal’s reasoning on withdrawals.
Rules 19.1 to 19.6 govern costs. A party may seek costs only when another has acted unreasonably, frivolously, vexatiously, or in bad faith. The Tribunal may require written submissions outlining the amount sought and the conduct at issue, and it evaluates seriousness, breaches of orders, interference with efficiency, prejudice, and the effect on access to the system. Even when granted, costs are capped at $1,000.00 per full day of attendance.
The jurisprudence demonstrates that the LAT interprets these provisions narrowly and awards costs only in exceptional cases. Withdrawals on their own do not meet the threshold.
What the Jurisprudence Shows About Withdrawals
A strong and consistent message emerges from LAT decisions.
- Withdrawing an application is a recognized procedural right.
- Timing alone is not misconduct.
- Significant prejudice is required before the LAT will consider awarding costs.
- Withdrawal almost never amounts to bad faith or abuse of process.
“A withdrawal of an application alone will rarely, if ever, be a sufficient basis on which the Tribunal will make a cost order.”
Similarly, in K.G. v. Aviva, the Tribunal stressed that punishing an Applicant for withdrawing could discourage access to justice, especially where additional medical information emerges after filing.
These cases confirm that costs and sanctions are reserved for truly egregious conduct. Mere inconvenience, frustration, or inefficiency is not enough.
When LAT Files Stay Open: The Importance of Respondent Issues
The most critical principle arising from LAT case law is that a withdrawal almost always closes the file unless the Respondent has outstanding issues that must still be adjudicated. This is the single most important procedural exception.
The Tribunal’s leading decision on this point is Hussein v. Wawanesa, 18-011887/AABS. There, the Applicant withdrew after lengthy proceedings, but the Tribunal had not yet addressed the Respondent’s repayment claim. Because the repayment issue remained unresolved, the Tribunal reopened the file.
Several lessons emerge from Hussein:
- A LAT proceeding may continue only if the Respondent has raised issues that require adjudication.
- These issues must be clearly recorded, particularly in the Case Conference Report.
- Administrative closure cannot extinguish Respondent issues that remain outstanding.
- Neither party should bear costs when the Tribunal’s own administrative errors contribute to procedural confusion.
Costs Following Withdrawal: A High Threshold of Vexatious or Bad-Faith Conduct
The LAT awards costs only when conduct is unreasonable, frivolous, vexatious, or in bad faith. These are strict requirements. Applicants may withdraw suddenly, inconveniently, or after extensive preparation by the Respondent, yet still not meet the threshold.
The clearest example of a cost award is Bablak v. Gore Mutual, 20-002022/AABS. The Applicant emailed withdrawing the morning of a scheduled five-day hearing without filing a Notice of Withdrawal. This deprived the Tribunal of the ability to manage the process and left the Respondent prejudiced after preparing witnesses and incurring expenses.
Adjudicator Watt awarded the maximum permitted costs of $1,000.00. Even so, the award was based not merely on timing but on the failure to file a mandatory Notice of Withdrawal and the exceptional prejudice caused.
This case illustrates that costs may follow where:
- the withdrawal is informal,
- the Applicant fails to comply with the Rules, and
- the timing significantly disrupts the hearing.
Case Study: K.G. v. Aviva and the Limits of Abuse-of-Process Allegations
K.G. v. Aviva Insurance Company of Canada, 19-006535/AABS (hereinafter “K.G.”), concerned a motor vehicle accident that occurred on April 27, 2016. The Applicant initially brought a LAT application on November 1, 2018 disputing denials of an income replacement benefit, an attendant care benefit, and four medical and rehabilitation benefits. A written hearing was scheduled for June 10, 2019 and the parties exchanged submissions. Three days before the hearing, on June 7, 2019, the Applicant filed a Notice of Withdrawal, and the Tribunal closed the file.
Eleven days later, on June 18, 2019, the Applicant filed a new Tribunal application raising the same four medical and rehabilitation benefits, though not the IRB or ACB previously in issue. At the case conference, the Respondent argued that this re-filing, after a last-minute withdrawal, constituted an abuse of process and sought dismissal of the application along with costs under Rule 19.1 of the Tribunal’s Common Rules of Practice and Procedure.
Adjudicator Sandeep Johal rejected the Respondent’s position. Relying on the statutory framework and Rules 3.4 and 19.1 to 19.5, the Tribunal held that the Respondent bore the onus of proving that the Applicant acted frivolously, vexatiously, unreasonably, or in bad faith. The Tribunal distinguished M.O. v. Unifund, noting that in K.G. the second application was filed 11 days later, was not identical (because IRB and ACB were removed), and followed the Applicant’s acquisition of new medical information, including chronic pain and hospital records, on which the Respondent continued adjusting the file. The Tribunal emphasized that no issue had been adjudicated on the merits, and that allowing re-filing in such circumstances promotes access to justice.
Finding no course of conduct amounting to abuse of process, and reaffirming that a withdrawal alone will rarely, if ever, justify costs, the Tribunal dismissed the Respondent’s request for both dismissal and costs.
The key takeaway is that the mere withdrawal and re-filing of an application, absent evidence of bad faith, frivolousness, or vexatious conduct, is not an abuse of process and will not on its own justify a costs award against an Applicant.
Case Study: 16-000474 v. Aviva and Procedural Missteps
16-000474 v. Aviva Insurance Company involved an application for accident benefits arising from a June 10, 2015 motor vehicle accident. After the Respondent denied certain physiotherapy and income replacement benefits, the Applicant appealed to the Licence Appeal Tribunal. A case conference was held on July 27, 2016, with written submissions due August 15 and a written/in-person hearing set for August 30.
A key issue was the Applicant’s late Case Conference Summary, which was served only one day before the case conference instead of the required ten days. Although the Respondent objected, the Tribunal found that while “not ideal,” the late filing was not so egregious as to justify costs, particularly because the case conference adjudicator gave the Respondent time to review it (paras. 14–16).
Another significant concern was the delay in initial submissions. The Applicant missed the August 15 deadline due in part to a scheduling error by counsel’s staff and because the Tribunal did not send the case conference report and order until August 16, one day after submissions were due (paras. 20–23). Counsel immediately wrote to the Tribunal upon receiving the order, explaining the conflict and requesting an adjournment due to a long-scheduled family vacation. The Respondent opposed the adjournment, and the Tribunal ultimately denied it. Taking these circumstances together, the Tribunal held it could not find the Applicant’s conduct “unreasonable, frivolous, vexatious or in bad faith” (para. 24).
Ultimately, the Applicant withdrew the application after the adjournment was denied. The Tribunal cited Executive Chair Lamoureux, emphasizing that “a withdrawal of an application alone will rarely, if ever, be a sufficient basis on which the Tribunal will make a cost order” and that mere inconvenience to the Respondent is insufficient (para. 25). The Vice-Chair accepted that, without an adjournment, the Applicant could not assemble necessary productions or affidavit evidence (paras. 27–28). As the decision explains, “if the Applicant did not withdraw her application and proceeded with the hearing, she would not be able to submit all the evidence she intended to rely upon,” and therefore “did not act unreasonably in withdrawing” (para. 28).
Given the late Tribunal processes, shortened timelines, and the Applicant’s explained difficulties, the Tribunal concluded that the Respondent had not proven any conduct warranting costs. The motion for costs was dismissed.
Case Study: Hussein v. Wawanesa and Reopening of a Withdrawn File
The decision in Hussein v. Wawanesa confirms that the LAT will reopen a file only when essential Respondent issues remain unaddressed. There, a repayment issue had been explicitly raised and included in the Case Conference Report. The Applicant later withdrew and the Tribunal administratively closed the file without addressing the repayment issue.
The Respondent moved to reopen the matter, and the LAT agreed. The Tribunal recognized that part of the confusion had been caused by its own administrative actions and held that neither party should be penalized with costs.
This case provides a crucial blueprint for Respondents. If they do not formally raise and preserve their issues, they will lose their ability to litigate them once a withdrawal is filed.
Practical Implications for Respondents
Given the strict limits on costs and the powerful legal effect of a Notice of Withdrawal, Respondents must proactively preserve their rights.
The following steps are essential:
- Raise all Respondent issues early, ideally in the Response Form.
- Ensure these issues are added to the Case Conference agenda and recorded in the Case Conference Report.
- Confirm that the Tribunal understands the Respondent intends to proceed on those issues even if the Applicant withdraws.
- Follow up in writing if there is any ambiguity.
- Seek clarification at the Case Conference on whether certain issues will survive an Applicant’s withdrawal.
What Next?
In the fall of 2025, our firm dealt with a case similar to Bablak. The Applicant filed a Notice of Withdrawal on the Friday before a Tuesday hearing and copied the Respondent’s lawyer. The Respondent had already prepared witnesses and incurred costs. When we contacted the Tribunal to request reopening, the LAT advised that because a formal Notice of Withdrawal had been filed, the matter was moot. Since no Respondent issues had been preserved in the Case Conference Report, the Tribunal no longer had jurisdiction to hear any motion, including costs.
This experience reinforced a central procedural truth. A withdrawal closes the file unless Respondent issues remain outstanding. The Tribunal cannot reopen a matter unless it still has an adjudicative mandate.
Concluding Remarks
Three key lessons emerge from the jurisprudence and practice experience:
- A LAT file could remain open after a withdrawal only if Respondent issues have been clearly raised and preserved. Without such issues, the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to proceed further.
- Costs are awarded only where conduct meets the high threshold of being frivolous, vexatious, unreasonable, or in bad faith. Timing and inconvenience are not enough.
- The LAT consistently emphasizes access to justice. It will not punish Applicants for reasonable withdrawals and will not chill the assertion of statutory rights by imposing costs for ordinary procedural missteps.