A former politician's autism advocacy has cost a tribunal its ruling in an accident benefits case.
The Ontario Divisional Court has overturned a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision after finding that the adjudicator's continued advocacy for people with autism created a reasonable apprehension of bias. The ruling, filed January 7, 2026, sends the case back to the LAT for a fresh hearing before a different adjudicator.
At the centre of the dispute is Economical Insurance Company and a claim for catastrophic impairment benefits. The claimant, Baraah Abou-Gabal, was 17 when she ran her bicycle into a stopped vehicle in a parking lot on July 7, 2018, and was thrown off. She had already been diagnosed with severe autism spectrum disorder, and was completely reliant on her family for supervision and assistance with basic daily activities.
After the accident, she applied for catastrophic impairment designation and attendant care benefits under Ontario's accident benefits regime. Economical denied the claims, and the dispute landed before the LAT.
Vice-Chair Jeremy Roberts presided over the hearing on May 6, 2024. He ruled that while the claimant's autism predated the accident, her condition had worsened because of it. He designated her as catastrophically impaired and awarded her $1,920.67 per month in attendant care benefits.
Economical cried foul—not over the merits, but over the messenger.
The insurer argued that Vice-Chair Roberts had a well-documented history of championing autism causes, driven by his own experience growing up with a younger brother on the spectrum. Before joining the LAT in December 2022, he had served as a Member of Provincial Parliament from June 2018 to May 2022, where supporting people with special needs was, in his own words, his "driving force" for entering politics.
More troubling for the court was what came after his appointment. In November 2023—just six months before the hearing—Roberts penned an article urging readers to lobby their elected officials on caregiver support. He proudly identified himself as a participant and panelist in a national caregiving summit.
The Divisional Court acknowledged that adjudicators bring their life experiences to the bench and are not expected to erase their identities. But there is a line, the court found, between background and active campaigning.
When an adjudicator continues public advocacy on the very issue before them, a reasonable observer might wonder whether the outcome was ever truly in doubt. That perception alone, the court held, is enough to taint the process.
The LAT had earlier dismissed Economical's bias concerns, suggesting the insurer should have raised them sooner and that the material only showed Roberts to be a subject matter expert. The Divisional Court disagreed. Parties should not be expected to vet their adjudicators in advance, and the timing of the complaint did not excuse the underlying problem.
The matter now returns to the LAT for a do-over before a new adjudicator. Economical was awarded $7,500 in costs.
For insurers, the takeaway is clear: what an adjudicator does after appointment matters just as much as what they did before.
