Safety, Licensing Appeals and Standards Tribunals Ontario Licence Appeal Tribunal Automobile Accident Benefits Service Mailing Address: 77 Wellesley St. W., Box 250, Toronto ON M7A 1N3 In-Person Service: 20 Dundas St. W., Suite 530, Toronto ON M5G 2C2 Tel.: 416-314-4260 1-800-255-2214 TTY: 416-916-0548 1-844-403-5906 Fax: 416-325-1060 1-844-618-2566 Website: www.slasto.gov.on.ca/en/AABS
Tribunaux de la sécurité, des appels en matière de permis et des normes Ontario Tribunal d'appel en matière de permis Service d'aide relative aux indemnités d'accident automobile Adresse postale : 77, rue Wellesley Ouest, Boîte no 250, Toronto ON M7A 1N3 Adresse municipale : 20, rue Dundas Ouest, Bureau 530, Toronto ON M5G 2C2 Tél. : 416 314-4260 1 800 255-2214 ATS : 416 916-0548 1 844 403-5906 Téléc. : 416 325-1060 1 844 618-2566 Site Web : www.slasto.gov.on.ca/fr/AABS
RECONSIDERATION DECISION
Before: Linda Lamoureux, Executive Chair
File: 16-000201/AABS
Case Name: D.S. v. Economical Insurance
Written Submissions By:
For the Respondent: Marc E. Smith, Counsel
On August 10, 2016, the Licence Appeal Tribunal (the “Tribunal”) issued a decision affirming its July 12, 2016 order which held that D.S. v. Economical Insurance would proceed by way of hybrid / teleconference hearing scheduled for September 7, 2016. Counsel for the respondent insurance company requested a reconsideration of the Tribunal’s decision.
For the reasons that follow, I dismiss the respondent’s request for reconsideration.
Discussion and Reasons
- The criteria for reconsideration are set out in Rule 18.2 of the Licence Appeal Tribunal Rules of Practice and Procedure, which states that the Executive Chair will not grant a request for reconsideration unless one or more of the following criteria are met:
a) The Tribunal acted outside its jurisdiction or violated the rules of natural justice or procedural fairness;
b) The Tribunal made a significant error of law or fact such that the Tribunal would likely have reached a different decision;
c) The Tribunal heard false or misleading evidence from a party or witness, which was discovered only after the hearing and would have affected the result; or
d) There is new evidence that could not have reasonably been obtained earlier and would have affected the result.
I have reviewed the respondent’s request for reconsideration, and am not satisfied that any of these criteria have been met in this case. In particular, I am not satisfied that the Tribunal acted outside its jurisdiction or violated the rules of natural justice or procedural fairness.
Decisions in respect of hearing format fall squarely within the jurisdiction of the case conference adjudicator to decide. In this case, the adjudicator conducted a case conference by telephone with the parties on July 5, 2016. After reviewing the Case Conference Summaries provided by the parties and having the opportunity to hear from the parties, the adjudicator determined that the matter should proceed by way of a hybrid hearing – a combination of written submissions and oral cross-examination.
In the Case Conference Report and Order dated July 13, 2016, the adjudicator set out a schedule for written submissions and evidence which included affidavit evidence from the applicant, his spouse and mother. In addition, the adjudicator scheduled an oral hearing date on September 7, 2016 where he ordered that:
… Economical will be permitted to cross-examine [D.S.], [D.S.’s] spouse and [D.S.’s] mother on their affidavits for 1 ½ hours each. At the conclusion of the cross-examination, the parties will be permitted to make closing submissions. Economical will be permitted to request a further date on which to make final written submissions.
- Following the case conference, the respondent wrote to the adjudicator on July 6, 2016 requesting that he reconsider his decision and convert the hybrid telephone hearing into an in-person hearing. Once again the adjudicator considered the submissions of the parties in respect of the appropriate hearing format in this matter. In his decision letter dated August 10, 2016, the adjudicator stated:
After considering the submissions of the parties, the content of my order dated July 13, 2016, remains unchanged and this hearing will proceed as a hybrid/teleconference proceeding.
Economical argues that affidavit evidence is the only evidence on which [D.S.] will rely at the hearing. Economical asserts that because of this, the adjudicator in this case should have the opportunity to assess the credibility of the witnesses. The Tribunal is not denying Economical its right to cross-examine witnesses. Economical will have an opportunity to address the credibility of the witnesses through cross-examination by teleconference. I find that it is not necessary in this case to see the witnesses to assess credibility. Economical will receive the affidavits seven days prior to the hearing, which provides it a fair opportunity to prepare questions to address any concerns it may have. The hearing adjudicator will have the ability to assess credibility by weighing the evidence as tested by Economical’s counsel at the hearing.
I find that the adjudicator has acted within his jurisdiction in determining the appropriate hearing format in this case. Nor are there any natural justice or procedural fairness issues or legal errors implicated in his decision.
The Applicant provided submissions on the issue of hearing format at both the case conference and in his July 22, 2016 letter in response to the Respondent’s July 6, 2016 letter to the adjudicator. Based on the information provided and given the nature of the decision, I find it is not necessary to canvass any additional submissions from the Applicant.
Based on the above, I therefore dismiss the respondent’s request for reconsideration.
Linda P. Lamoureux
Executive Chair
Safety, Licensing Appeals and Standards Tribunals Ontario
Released: September 1, 2016