Unprecedented win in the LAT for McLean

---

 The motion that got rid of the fictitious Respondent in TDGIC and re-inserted SNIC (only insurance company in the pleadings) but little did we know at the time that it was TDHA with that 416.774.3120. Still tipping. Back then they did not want me – now I am hotter than ever and they all on me. Dime pieces by the dozen from sisters to cousins and we got them doing things they said they wasn’t. RIP DMX.  

 This Notice of Motion, issued April 9, 2024 in McLean v. TD General Insurance Company (LAT File 23‑015662/AABS), seeks an order disqualifying six TD representatives from handling or participating in the proceeding due to alleged conflicts of interest. The Licence Appeal Tribunal has scheduled the motion to be heard at the May 2, 2024 case conference, with deadlines set for responding and reply submissions. The motion raises procedural fairness concerns within Ontario’s statutory accident benefits framework and forms part of the broader litigation record documenting systemic issues in insurer conduct before the LAT. 

 This Notice of Motion (LAT File 23‑015662/AABS), filed January 21, 2025, seeks urgent procedural relief in McLean v. SNIC arising from alleged statutory defects in the Licence Appeal Tribunal’s pre‑hearing process. The Applicant requests that the motion be heard before any hearing proper, or alternatively that the hearing be adjourned generally. The motion asserts that SNIC failed to file a mandatory case conference brief, and further argues that the LAT’s pre‑hearing conference was conducted without statutory authority, contrary to section 5.3 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act. The Applicant relies on extensive record materials, including 38 affidavits, case conference notes, and written submissions, and seeks costs if SNIC does not consent. This filing forms part of the broader LAT litigation archive documenting systemic procedural irregularities in Ontario accident benefits adjudication. 

This Hearing Record for NOM #19 (LAT File 23‑015662/AABS), filed January 21, 2025, consolidates the Applicant’s full submissions challenging the legality of the Licence Appeal Tribunal’s pre‑hearing process in McLean v. Security National Insurance Company. The motion seeks to have NOM #19 heard before any hearing proper, or alternatively to adjourn the hearing entirely, on the basis that SNIC failed to file a mandatory case conference brief, failed to attend the case conference, and failed to correct its non‑compliance. The Applicant argues that the LAT’s pre‑hearing conference was conducted without statutory authority, contrary to section 5.3 of the SPPA, rendering the proceeding a nullity.

The Hearing Record includes:

• the Notice of Motion,
• confirmation of filing and service,
• extensive factual submissions (Volumes 1–4),
• reliance on 38 affidavits,
• statutory analysis under the SPPA and LAT Rules,
• detailed procedural history involving SNIC, TDGIC, and TDHA,
• and a request for costs due to SNIC’s repeated failures.

This filing forms part of the broader LAT litigation archive documenting systemic procedural irregularities, insurer non‑compliance, and jurisdictional defects within Ontario’s statutory accident benefits adjudication framework.

This Hearing Record for NOM #20 (LAT File 23‑015662/AABS), filed January 21, 2025, documents the Applicant’s motion seeking enforcement of Vice‑Chair Morissette’s orders arising from NOM #16. The motion asserts that Security National Insurance Company (“SNIC”) has failed to comply with mandatory production and disclosure obligations ordered by the Tribunal, and requests that SNIC be barred from participating in the LAT proceeding until full compliance is achieved.

The Applicant seeks:

• an order compelling SNIC to comply with all VCM Orders;
• suspension of SNIC’s participatory rights until compliance;
• adjournment of the hearing proper involving SNIC;
• and costs due to SNIC’s ongoing procedural delinquency.

The record includes the Notice of Motion, Schedule “A,” extensive correspondence documenting SNIC’s defective attempts at compliance, and reliance on the Applicant’s prior hearing records for NOM #16 and #17. This filing forms part of the broader LAT litigation archive addressing insurer non‑compliance, procedural irregularities, and statutory obligations under the SPPA and LAT Rules.

This filing for NOM #10 (LAT File 23‑015662/AABS), served and filed June 7, 2024, seeks sweeping procedural and statutory relief under sections 23(1), 23(3), and 25.0.1 of the SPPA. The Applicant requests the permanent exclusion of SNIC’s unlicensed representative, Mr. David Karat, and the removal of TDGIC’s counsel, Mr. Matthew Nieuwland, on the basis of unauthorized representation, misrepresentation, and irremediable nullities arising from filings made without standing.

NOM #10 is designed to be heard concurrently with NOM #8, forming a unified written hearing addressing the structural collapse of the respondent identity in the SNIC Proceeding. The motion asserts that TDGIC’s filings—signed by counsel for a non‑party—constitute irremediable nullities, and that SNIC’s failure to retain a licensed representative since service of the Appeal violates statutory requirements and the Tribunal’s procedural framework.

The Applicant relies on Affidavit #25, the full hearing record for NOM #8, and extensive authorities under LAT Rule 9.4.5, the SPPA, the Insurance Act, SABS, Reg 664, and FSRA enforcement decisions. NOM #10 also seeks a declaration that SNIC is no longer entitled to further notice under SPPA s.7(1)–(3), and requests $1,000 in costs for NOM #8 and NOM #10.

This motion forms a critical part of the LAT litigation archive documenting unauthorized representation, insurer misconduct, procedural nullities, and systemic abuse of process within Ontario’s statutory accident benefits adjudication.

Tab 22 of NOM #14 (LAT File 23‑015662/AABS) contains newly discovered pictorial and documentary evidence establishing that 304 The East Mall, Etobicoke was exclusively a physical address for TD Home and Auto Insurance Company (TDHA)—and never for Security National Insurance Company (SNIC). The tab includes photographs taken on August 4, 2024, showing the East Mall site under condominium redevelopment, confirming that the former TDHA location was not, and could not have been, a SNIC branch or receiving address.

This evidence directly supports the Applicant’s position that TDHA—not SNIC—was the First Insurer to receive the Completed Application (OCF‑1), as reflected in multiple OCF‑18 submissions within the HCAI portal tied to TD Claim #3. The tab also includes service emails sent to SNIC and TDHA attaching the pictorial evidence, demonstrating that the East Mall Address was consistently auto‑populated in HCAI for TDHA, reinforcing the Applicant’s argument that SNIC could not have received the initial OCF documents at that location.

Tab 22 forms a critical component of NOM #14, supporting relief related to First‑Insurer identification, Reg 283 compliance, and the correction of misrepresented insurer addresses within the LAT proceeding. 

This filing contains the Applicant’s Speaking Notes for NOM #4 (LAT File 23‑015662/AABS), prepared for the May 2, 2024 hearing addressing the historical quantum of Income Replacement Benefits (IRB). The motion seeks determination of the IRB Principal Quantum owed by Security National Insurance Company (SNIC) from September 8, 2022 to December 28, 2023, based on SNIC’s own admissions regarding IRB delivery date, weekly quantum, and denial date.

The document outlines:

• the Applicant’s status as an Insured Person under the Insurance Act and SABS;
• SNIC’s role as the sole SABS insurer, sole historical payor, and sole future payor;
• statutory obligations under SABS, Reg 664, and the Insurance Act;
• the calculation of 38 unpaid IRB streams totalling $27,200, plus 1% compound interest under s.51 of SABS;
• SNIC’s failure to file responsive submissions by the Tribunal’s April 11, 2024 deadline;
• the prohibition on TDGIC’s participation due to lack of standing and unauthorized representation;
• the impact of the Jia decision, confirming that unsworn or improperly obtained insurer evidence cannot be admitted under SPPA s.15.

NOM #4 forms a central component of the LAT litigation archive, documenting insurer admissions, statutory entitlements, and the legal basis for IRB quantum recovery in the SNIC Proceeding.

This document contains the Applicant’s urgent email correspondence (April 29–30 and May 2, 2024) forming part of the evidentiary foundation for NOM #6 in LAT File 23‑015662/AABS. The emails raise serious concerns about unauthorized insurer communications, misidentification of the respondent, and potential conflict‑of‑interest misconduct involving the “TDIADR” email account, SNIC’s ADR representative, and TDGIC counsel.

The correspondence outlines:

• the discovery that the TDIADR email may have misinformed the Tribunal about the identity of the respondent insurer;
• the Applicant’s request for disclosure of any emails or phone notes showing how TDGIC was incorrectly treated as the respondent;
• concerns regarding a “Spam Fax” received during the period when SNIC was handling IRB and OCF‑6 submissions, suggesting improper rerouting or interference;
• contradictions between TDGIC counsel’s submissions and the factual record, including denials of involvement by individuals later shown to have acted on the file;
• the Applicant’s notice that these issues will be raised at the May 2, 2024 hearing for NOM #4 and NOM #6, including requests for disqualification of conflicted individuals;
• repeated confirmation that SNIC is the sole insurer under the Insurance Act and that the Applicant never consented to any change of insurer or unauthorized disclosure of confidential information.

This email chain forms a critical part of the LAT litigation archive, documenting procedural irregularities, unauthorized insurer conduct, and the Applicant’s efforts to preserve the integrity of the proceeding.

This document forms part of the Hearing Record for NOM #6 (LAT File 23‑015662/AABS) and consists of a detailed chain of emails sent by the Applicant between April 26 and May 2, 2024. The correspondence raises urgent concerns about unauthorized insurer communications, misidentification of the respondent, and potential conflict‑of‑interest misconduct involving the “TDIADR” email account, SNIC’s ADR representative, and TDGIC counsel.

The emails outline:

• the discovery that the TDIADR email may have misled the Tribunal into treating TDGIC as the respondent despite SNIC being the sole insurer under the Insurance Act;
• the Applicant’s request for disclosure of any emails or phone notes showing how the respondent identity was improperly changed;
• concerns regarding a “Spam Fax” received during the period when SNIC was handling IRB and OCF‑6 submissions, suggesting improper rerouting or interference with confidential information;
• contradictions between TDGIC counsel’s submissions and the factual record, including denials of involvement by individuals later shown to have acted on the file;
• repeated confirmation that the Applicant never consented to any change of insurer or unauthorized disclosure of confidential information;
• notice that these issues would be raised at the May 2, 2024 hearing for NOM #4 and NOM #6, including requests for disqualification of conflicted individuals and findings of abuse of process.

This email chain is a critical component of the NOM #6 Hearing Record, documenting procedural irregularities, unauthorized insurer conduct, and the Applicant’s efforts to preserve the integrity of the LAT proceeding.

This document is an OCF‑18 Treatment and Assessment Plan submitted under TD Claim #3 and AABS File 23‑015662/AABS, containing evidence of a forged adjuster signature. Although the form lists Alisha‑Anne Nurse as the adjuster, the signature block reads “As per A. Nurse / Kim”, indicating that the signature was executed by Mr. Andrew Papadimitropoulos, not the adjuster identified on the form.

The OCF‑18 proposes $2,808.50 in treatment and assessment costs and was partially approved on April 20, 2023. The forged signature raises serious concerns regarding:

• unauthorized execution of regulated insurer documents;
• misrepresentation of adjuster identity;
• improper handling of OCF‑18 approvals;
• potential breaches of SABS, FSRA regulatory requirements, and PIPEDA;
• contamination of the insurer’s evidentiary record in the LAT proceeding.

This OCF‑18 forms part of the Applicant’s broader LAT litigation archive documenting insurer misconduct, unauthorized representation, and procedural irregularities in the handling of statutory accident benefits.

This summons, filed April 10, 2024 in LAT File 23‑015662/AABS, compels the attendance of Andrew Papadimitropoulos (“AP”), former SABS Manager at TD Insurance, to provide evidence relating to conflict‑of‑interest allegations, unauthorized representation, and potential misconduct affecting the Applicant’s statutory accident benefits claim.

The summons requires AP to testify at the May 2, 2024 hearing and to produce extensive documentation, including:

• all materials connected to TD Claim #3 and related TD claim numbers;
• all records involving SNIC’s handling of the Appellant’s accident benefits file;
• communications with adjusters (including Alisha‑Anne Nurse and Carol Persaud);
• documents relating to privacy, access, and PIPEDA requests;
• any personal information collected, used, accessed, or disclosed about the Appellant;
• records involving the TDIADR email account;
• materials evidencing AP’s involvement in activities falling under LSA s.1(7) (unauthorized legal services);
• any partnership, association, or MDP agreements with individuals named in the April 9, 2024 LAT order.

The summons is directly tied to NOM #6, the Applicant’s Conflict of Interest Motion, and seeks to establish whether AP engaged in unauthorized legal services, improper file handling, or conduct that tainted the LAT proceeding. This filing is a critical component of the LAT litigation archive documenting systemic insurer misconduct, privacy breaches, and procedural contamination.

These Speaking Notes, dated April 29, 2024, form the Applicant’s comprehensive oral‑argument record for NOM #6 in LAT File 23‑015662/AABS. They consolidate the 646‑page Joint Hearing Record into a structured, adjudicator‑ready narrative addressing the core issue: whether Security National Insurance Company (SNIC) and TD General Insurance Company (TDGIC) engaged in conflict‑of‑interest misconduct, unauthorized legal services, and improper participation in the LAT proceeding.

The Notes outline:

• the Applicant’s status as      an Insured Person under the Insurance Act and SABS;
• SNIC’s role as the sole      SABS insurer, contrasted with TDGIC as a Non‑SABS Insurer with      no standing;
• the legal consequences of      TDGIC counsel filing submissions, signing documents, and acting as      “respondent” despite not being the insurer;
• the unauthorized practice      of law by SNIC’s ADR representative, including signing, filing, and      serving the Purported SNIC Response;
• the statutory framework      under the Law Society Act, including s.1(5), s.1(6), and s.1(7)      defining legal services and representation;
• the insurer‑identity      confusion created by the TDIADR email, adjuster changes, and inconsistent      representations;
• the Applicant’s procedural      steps: filing the Appeal, serving SNIC, filing COSs, and assembling the      Joint Hearing Record;
• the impact of fresh      evidence, including the replacement adjuster and the misalignment between      SNIC’s obligations and TDGIC’s conduct;
• the requirement under LAT      Rules and SPPA that only the true insurer (SNIC) may act as respondent,      and that unauthorized filings by TDGIC must be struck as nullities.

These Speaking Notes serve as the Applicant’s structured oral roadmap for the May 2, 2024 hearing, demonstrating how the proceeding has been tainted by insurer misrepresentation, unauthorized legal services, and conflict‑of‑interest breaches requiring adjudicative intervention. 

 This email set provides contemporaneous evidence of psychological interference directed at the Appellant during a critical phase of his legal matters. The communications include attempts to portray objective, verifiable legal and technical facts as imagined or “in his head,” constituting classic gaslighting. The Appellant’s replies show consistent rationality, technical accuracy, and emotional restraint. These emails support the Appellant’s position that he remained fully competent, logical, and grounded in fact despite external emotional turbulence. They also illustrate the Appellant’s longstanding pattern of resilience, high‑performance decision‑making under pressure, and commitment to process over emotion — all relevant to assessing credibility and reliability in NOM #13. 

 This post analyzes the evidentiary foundation and statutory framework underpinning NOM #14, demonstrating that TD Home and Auto Insurance Company (“TDHA”) — not Security National Insurance Company (“SNIC”) — was the First Insurer to receive the Appellant’s Completed Application on October 13, 2022. Drawing on fax‑line ownership, HCAI auto‑population of the East Mall Address, the absence of any Reg 283 dispute notice within the 90‑day statutory window, and the Supreme Court of Canada’s Zurich jurisprudence, the motion establishes TDHA’s permanent liability to pay benefits. The analysis also addresses the misdirection caused by “Spam Faxes,” the misrepresented Burlington and East Mall addresses, and the factual impossibility of SNIC receiving the OCF‑1 at a non‑existent SNIC fax line. This is the motion that re‑aligned the entire proceeding  and the public interest, and set the stage for the win at the Divisional Court.  

 This article examines the NOM #15 Hearing Record and Written Argument, focusing on the central question: which insurer actually received, held, and controlled the Appellant’s accident‑benefits claim file? Through fax‑line evidence, business‑directory records, HCAI auto‑population, and the statutory timelines under Reg 283, the record shows that TD Home & Auto Insurance Company (“TDHA”) — not Security National Insurance Company (“SNIC”) — was the First Insurer. NOM #15 provides the factual clarity needed to understand how misrepresented contact information and insurer silence shaped the outcome of this priority dispute.