Safety, Licensing Appeals and Standards Tribunals Ontario

Tribunaux de la sécurité, des appels en matière de permis et des normes 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

Tribunal d'appel en matière de permis Service d'aide relative aux indemnités d'accident automobile Adresse postale : 77, rue Wellesley Ouest, Boîte n^o 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 – ADDENDUM ON COSTS

Before: Linda P. Lamoureux, Executive Chair Date: May 30, 2017 File: 16-000066/AABS Case Name: 16-000066 v Waterloo Regional Municipalities Insurance

Written Submissions By: For the Respondent: Shawn MacDonald, Counsel For the Applicant: Georgiana Masgras, Counsel

Overview

1On December 9, 2016, the Licence Appeal Tribunal (the “Tribunal”) issued a final decision in N. E. and Waterloo Regional Municipalities Insurance.

2On December 25, 2016, the applicant requested a reconsideration of the Tribunal’s decision. The applicant requested that the December 9, 2016 Order be cancelled and the matter be sent before another adjudicator for a new hearing.

3I denied the applicant’s request for reconsideration in my Decision dated March 14, 2017.

4The respondent made a request for costs that was not addressed in that March 14, 2017 decision. I will address the request now.

Request for Costs

5The Licence Appeal Tribunal Rules of Practice and Procedure (the “Rules”) include a provision in Rule 19.1 for parties to request costs of the proceeding, if they believe that the other party has acted unreasonably, frivolously, vexatiously, or in bad faith. Rule 19.4 further sets out the requirements for that request, which must include the reasons for the request and the particulars of the alleged conduct.

6The respondent has asked for costs in this proceeding on the basis that the applicant’s reconsideration request (“Request”) includes “arguments that are unreasonable, frivolous, vexatious, and/or in bad faith.” Further, the respondent asserts that the Request contains various “deficiencies” which in turn warrant a cost award.

7Specifically, the respondent submits that the applicant’s Request includes:

(i) Assertions unsupported by evidence; (ii) Factual assertions demonstrably untrue; and (iii) New issues not raised at the initial hearing.

8When the party bringing the proceeding is acting without reasonable or probable cause or excuse or merely wishes to annoy or harass his or her opponent, such conduct could be said to be “vexatious".¹

9A party could be said to have acted “frivolously”² if the claim lacked a legal basis or legal merit; it was not serious or not reasonably purposeful; was clearly insufficient on its face; or where no rational argument based upon the law could be presented in support of that claim.

10In this case, although the applicant’s request was not successful, I do not find that it can be characterized as either vexatious or frivolous.

11The applicant’s request for reconsideration was based on the following assertions:

(i) The Tribunal mischaracterized an issue in dispute and acted outside its jurisdiction and thereby violated the rules of natural justice and procedural fairness; (ii) The Tribunal made a significant error of law or fact in not considering certain evidence; and (iii) The applicant has new evidence that could not have reasonably be obtained earlier and would affect the result.

12I did not find that the applicant’s arguments in respect of any of the above met the test for reconsideration. While the arguments were not persuasive, they did not amount to being vexatious or frivolous or unreasonable.

13The respondent has failed to meet the threshold and requirements for costs set out in Rule 19. I do not find that the applicant’s request for reconsideration amounts to conduct that is unreasonable, frivolous, vexatious, or in bad faith.

Conclusion

14The respondent’s request for costs is denied.

Linda P. Lamoureux Executive Chair Safety, Licensing Appeals and Standards Tribunals Ontario

Footnotes

1. 1Black’s Law Dictionary (10th ed. 2014), vexatious: (Of conduct) without reasonable or probable cause or excuse; harassing; annoying.
2. 2Black’s Law Dictionary (10th ed. 2014), frivolous: lacking a legal basis or legal merit; not serious; not reasonably purposeful . — frivolousness, n. (or, less good) frivolity, n.