[The Applicant] v. The Guarantee Company of North America, 2018 CanLII 133514

Safety, Licensing Appeals and Standards Tribunal Ontario

Licence Appeal Tribunal

Automobile Accident Benefits Service

Mailing Address: 77 Wellesley St. W., Box 250, Toronto, ON M7A 1N3

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 n^o 250, Toronto ON M7A 1N3

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: Lori Marzinotto, Vice-Chair

Date: December 10, 2018

File: 18-002753/AABS

Case Name: [The Applicant] v. The Guarantee Company of North America

Written Submissions By:

For the Applicant: Georgiana Masgras

For the Respondent: Kasia Kosacka

Introduction

1This request for reconsideration arises from an oral decision made during a case conference held on September 14, 2018 at the Licence Appeal Tribunal (the “Tribunal”) denying the applicant’s request that the respondent provide the applicant with the raw test data from Dr. Pendergast, a psychologist.

2Pursuant to s. 17(2) of the Adjudicative Tribunals Accountability, Governance and Appointments Act, 2009, S.O. 2009, c. 33, Sched. 5, I have been delegated responsibility to decide this matter in accordance with the applicable rules of the Tribunal.

3As explained below, I deny this request for reconsideration.

The Facts

4By letter to the Tribunal dated on September 14, 2018, the applicant requested a reconsideration of the case conference adjudicator’s decision “denying the applicant’s request for a copy of all IME assessor’s raw data…”.¹

5In the reconsideration, the applicant requests that the respondent produce all the raw data of all IME assessors, including Dr. Taylor (General Practitioner), Dr. Lazarou (Neurologist), and Dr. Pendergast (Psychologist). However, the adjudicator’s case conference report only references Dr. Pendergast. There is no mention of the applicant requesting the raw data of Dr. Taylor or Dr. Lazarou. Accordingly, the request for reconsideration regarding the raw data of Dr. Taylor and Dr. Lazarou is a new request and not a proper request for reconsideration.

Decision and Reasons

6Rule 18.1 of the Common Rules of Practice & Procedure (the “Rules”), requires a request for reconsideration to include the reasons for the request, specifying the criteria under Rule 18.2.

7Under Rule 18.2, one or more of the following four grounds needs to be established:

(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 had the error not been made;

(c) The Tribunal heard false or misleading evidence from a party or witness, which was discovered only after the hearing and likely affected the result; or

(d) There is new evidence that could not have reasonably been obtained earlier and would have affected the result.

8In order to meet the high onus to obtain the reconsideration of a decision, the request must provide some evidence and argument to the Tribunal.

9The applicant does not specify the basis under Rule18.2 for reconsideration. The applicant states in the letter requesting a reconsideration that it would be unfair for the applicant to proceed to a hearing without its expert having the opportunity to review the raw test data of Dr. Taylor, Dr. Lazarou and Dr. Pendergast.

10This is a different argument than what was advanced at the case conference. As stated above, the case conference adjudicator only refers to the request for raw data of one doctor, Dr. Pendergast, be provided to the applicant.

11In its request for reconsideration, the applicant included a case where the Court decided that raw test data had been specifically requested by the defence expert and the Court ordered that it be provided directly to the expert². The respondent referred to the same case and emphasized the part of the decision which indicates that the raw data be provided to the expert but not directly to the lawyers.

12The applicant’s request for reconsideration does not provide any basis for reconsideration, there are no supporting facts and the applicant advances the new claim for raw data from the additional two doctors. A party is not entitled to reconsideration simply because it did not like the previous decision; it must provide grounds supporting its claim.

13The applicant has failed to make a prima facie case that the Tribunal’s case conference decision includes any error that merits consideration.

14The applicant’s request for reconsideration is denied.

Lori Marzinotto Vice-Chair

Safety, Licensing Appeals and Standards Tribunals Ontario

Footnotes

1. 1On October 4, 2018, the respondent advised the applicant and the Tribunal that it would agree to provide the raw data of Dr. Predergast [sic] to Dr. Kurzman, the applicant’s anticipated neuropsychologist, on the condition that the applicant undertake to produce Dr. Kurzman at the scheduled in-person hearing. It appears that the respondent’s October 4, 2018 has gone unanswered as the Tribunal has not been provided with a copy of a response.
2. 2Richard Long et al. v. Dundee Resort et al, 2012 ONSC 3201