Case snapshot
At a glance
- Case
- Can You Sue an IME Assessor in Court in Ontario?
- Court / Tribunal
- Ontario Superior Court of Justice
- Citation
- 2026 ONSC 4502 ↗
- Date
- August 5, 2026
- Area of law
- Motor Vehicle Accident
- Key issue
- Whether the Superior Court has jurisdiction to hear tort claims against third-party medical assessors who allegedly altered section 44 reports, or whether the LAT's exclusive jurisdiction over accident benefits bars those claims entirely.
- Outcome
- The court struck the misrepresentation claims for lack of plaintiff reliance but allowed the negligence, unlawful means, and inducing breach of contract claims to proceed, confirming Superior Court jurisdiction over tort claims against non-insurer assessors.
- Why it matters
- Injured Ontarians who believe a medical assessor manipulated their IME report now have a confirmed path to sue that assessor directly in court, separate from their accident benefits dispute at the LAT.
Legal principle
The rule from this case
The Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) has exclusive jurisdiction over whether an injured person is entitled to statutory accident benefits (SABS) — but that jurisdiction does not extend to awarding general damages against third parties like independent medical examination (IME) companies. When an assessor allegedly falsifies or alters a medical report used to deny benefits, the injured person can pursue tort claims in the Superior Court, because the LAT simply has no power to grant that kind of remedy against a non-insurer. For economic torts like unlawful means and inducing breach of contract, the court applied the established framework and found that a viable claim can be pleaded where the plaintiff identifies a contract with the insurer, alleges the assessor knew about that contract, and pleads intentional interference through the altered report. Negligence claims against assessors can also proceed where a duty of care and resulting harm are properly alleged.
Important limits
What this does not mean
This decision does not mean every dissatisfied accident benefits claimant can bypass the LAT and go straight to court. The LAT still has exclusive authority over whether you are entitled to specific benefits — that question stays at the tribunal. The Superior Court's role confirmed here is limited to tort claims for damages caused by the assessor's own alleged wrongdoing, not a re-run of the benefits entitlement dispute. The court also struck the fraudulent and negligent misrepresentation claims because the plaintiff did not personally rely on the assessor's report — the insurer did. Misrepresentation requires the plaintiff themselves to have acted on the false statement. Plaintiffs who want to revive those claims must amend their pleadings to address that gap. The case is also not a green light to run parallel proceedings on the same issues: the court deferred the trial on overlapping facts until the LAT finishes deciding the benefits questions.
Can an injured person sue an IME company directly in Ontario?
Yes — Ontario’s Superior Court has confirmed that an injured person can bring tort claims directly against a third-party medical assessor, even while a separate accident benefits dispute is ongoing at the Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT). The key is that the claims must target the assessor’s own conduct, not simply re-argue who is entitled to benefits.
This question was addressed in Plante (Litigation Guardian) v. Dynamic Functional Solutions Inc. et al, 2026 ONSC 4502 (CanLII), a motion to strike decision released in August 2026. The defendants — IME companies — argued the court had no jurisdiction and the action should be thrown out entirely. The court disagreed in large part.
Does the LAT’s exclusive jurisdiction block a court lawsuit against an assessor?
No — the LAT’s exclusive jurisdiction applies to entitlement to statutory accident benefits, not to tort claims for damages caused by an assessor’s alleged misconduct. The Insurance Act gives the LAT the final word on whether you qualify for specific benefits. It does not give the LAT any power to award general damages against an IME company for wrongdoing.
The court distinguished earlier decisions that had been read broadly to suggest the LAT sweeps in all related claims. Where the defendant is not the insurer, and the remedy sought is general damages for tortious conduct, the Superior Court retains jurisdiction. Our Ontario motor vehicle accident lawyers regularly advise clients on which forum — court or tribunal — is the right place for each part of their claim.
What tort claims can proceed against an IME assessor?
Negligence, unlawful means, and inducing breach of contract can all proceed where the pleadings are properly drafted. The court found that the plaintiff had adequately alleged:
- A duty of care owed by the assessors to the injured person;
- That the assessors’ reports were altered, constituting unlawful means;
- That the assessors knew a contract existed between the plaintiff and the insurer and intentionally interfered with it through the altered reports.
These are serious allegations. But the court’s role on a motion to strike is not to decide whether they are true — only whether, if proven, they could succeed in law. The threshold to strike is high, and these claims cleared it.
What claims were struck, and why?
The fraudulent and negligent misrepresentation claims were struck because of a missing element: the plaintiff did not rely on the assessor’s report. In law, misrepresentation requires that you acted on the false statement to your detriment. Here, it was the insurer — not the injured person — who received and acted on the IME reports. That breaks the chain the law requires.
The court gave the plaintiff leave to amend those claims. If a plaintiff can plead facts showing they personally relied on the assessor’s report in some way, the misrepresentation claims could be revived. This is a meaningful distinction for anyone considering a similar action.
Is suing the assessor an abuse of process if the LAT is already involved?
Not automatically — but the court drew a careful line. Running two proceedings that overlap in facts is not inherently abusive. What the law prohibits is using a court action as a collateral attack on a tribunal decision — essentially asking the court to reverse what the LAT already decided.
Here, the court found no abuse of process, but it did defer the trial on overlapping factual issues until the LAT finishes its work on benefits entitlement. That sequencing avoids inconsistent findings while preserving the plaintiff’s right to pursue the tort claims. If you are navigating both a LAT dispute and potential court claims, understanding how accident benefits proceedings interact with civil litigation is essential.
Practical takeaways for injured accident victims
- Identify every potential defendant early. IME companies and assessors can be sued separately from your insurer — but you need to plead the right claims from the start.
- Preserve evidence of altered or inconsistent reports. The court’s analysis turned heavily on whether the pleadings alleged specific wrongdoing by the assessors. Vague allegations will not survive a motion to strike.
- Misrepresentation claims require your own reliance. If you want to sue for misrepresentation, you must be able to show you personally acted on the false statement — not just that the insurer did.
- Coordinate your LAT and court timelines. The court will likely defer overlapping issues until the LAT finishes. Plan your litigation strategy with that sequencing in mind.
- Get legal advice before filing. Choosing the wrong forum or pleading the wrong cause of action can result in your claim being struck, even if the underlying facts are strong.
Clients in the Hamilton and Burlington area dealing with accident benefit disputes and potential assessor misconduct can reach our Hamilton motor vehicle accident team for guidance on which claims belong where.
UL Lawyers offers a free initial consultation from our Burlington office and serves clients across Ontario. If you have concerns about a medical assessment in your accident benefits claim, speak with our motor vehicle accident legal team to understand your options.
This article is automated commentary on a public court decision and is for general information only — not legal advice. Decisions rely on facts unique to each case. If you are affected by a similar issue, contact a lawyer for advice specific to your situation.
FAQ
Frequently asked questions
Yes, Ontario courts have confirmed that tort claims — including negligence and economic torts — can be brought against IME assessors in the Superior Court. You do not need to wait for your LAT accident benefits case to finish, though the court may sequence the proceedings.
No. The LAT only decides whether you are entitled to statutory accident benefits from your insurer. Claims for general damages against third parties like IME companies, or tort claims against at-fault drivers, are handled by the Superior Court.
Unlawful means is a tort where a defendant uses illegal or wrongful conduct to harm you economically. Inducing breach of contract is where a third party intentionally causes someone else to break a contract they have with you. Both can apply when an assessor allegedly manipulates a report to cause your insurer to deny benefits.