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
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 P. Lamoureux, Executive Chair
File: 17-002762/AABS
Case Name: L.D. v. Gore Mutual Insurance Company
Written Submissions By:
For the Applicant: Peter Murray
For the Respondent: NA
Overview
This request for reconsideration arises from an order in which the Licence Appeal Tribunal (the “Tribunal”) reheard and disposed of five motions brought by L.D., the applicant, and Gore Mutual Insurance Company, the respondent. The applicant requested the Tribunal’s order to be “clarified” to address additional issues. The Tribunal responded by directing the parties to schedule a case conference if they wished to raise additional issues. The applicant brought a request for reconsideration challenging the Tribunal’s direction.
As explained below, I deny this request for reconsideration.
The Facts
On January 30-31, 2018, the parties appeared before a three-member panel of the Tribunal to argue fifteen motions. On January 31, the panel adjourned the hearing after hearing only five motions. On February 13, the panel issued a decision, which disposed of these five motions.
The applicant brought two requests for reconsideration on January 31 and April 2, to challenge the panel’s decision of February 13 as well as additional procedural orders and directions provided by the Tribunal in relation to the parties’ motions.
In a decision dated May 18, I partially granted the applicant’s January 31st and April 2nd requests for reconsideration. Specifically as it relates to the request for reconsideration currently before me, I recused the panel and ordered the following five motions which were disposed on February 13 to be reheard:
The applicant’s motion for the hearing of the substantive issues to be adjourned until the determination of the parties’ motions,
The applicant’s motion that the respondent produce Jennifer Bethune and Jeremy Wainwright for cross-examination,
The applicant’s motion for the respondent to produce third party records by the private investigation companies, Whitehall Bureau of Canada and Rapid Loss Control,
The applicant’s motion for the respondent to cease and desist surveillance of the applicant, and
The respondent’s motion that the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to issue a cease and desist order.
These five motions were scheduled to be reheard on June 19-20. On June 13, the applicant filed a Notice of Motion seeking “an urgent resumption of the Case Conference.” Also on June 13, the Tribunal advised the applicant that her concerns regarding the motions would be addressed at the onset of the June 19-20 hearing.
On June 15, the applicant filed another request for reconsideration challenging the Tribunal’s letter of June 13. I denied this request for reconsideration on June 18 on the basis that it was premature.
On July 4, the Tribunal issued an order dealing with the five motions it heard on June 19-20. The Tribunal ordered the following:
The hearing of the substantive issues will be adjourned until the determination of the parties’ motions.
The respondent will produce Jennifer Bethune for cross-examination on her affidavit in Hamilton within thirty days of this decision, or elsewhere as the parties may agree.
The motion that the respondent produce for cross-examination Jeremy Wainwright is dismissed.
The applicant’s motion for the production of third party records is adjourned to August 8, 2018 at 9:30 am.
The applicant’s motion for an order that the respondent cease further surveillance and the respondent’s motion that the Tribunal does not have the jurisdiction to issue such an order will be heard on August 8 at 9:30 am and 9, 2018 as the Tribunal may direct.
A further Case Conference will be scheduled to deal with any other outstanding issues and motions.
Also on July 4, the applicant sent a letter to the Tribunal. In her letter, the applicant noted that page six of the Tribunal’s order of July 4 appeared to have been included in error and requested the Tribunal to “clarify” whether the order included the cross-examination of Jennifer Bethune on a second affidavit she swore on June 13 as well as the cross-examinations of Kristen Bailey and Danielle Lecours on their four affidavits.
On July 5, the respondent objected to the applicant’s request on the basis that she was actually seeking a partial variation of the Tribunal’s order and suggested the appropriate process for doing so was reconsideration.
On July 13, the Tribunal released an amended order with the inadvertently attached page removed. At the same time, the Tribunal informed the parties that if either party intended to have additional motions heard before the next motion hearing on August 8, they should advise the Tribunal to schedule a case conference.
On July 16, the applicant filed the request for reconsideration currently before me challenging the Tribunal’s denial of her request to resume the motion hearing.
Decision and Reasons
The applicant claims that the Tribunal denied her natural justice and procedural fairness by denying her request to resume the motion hearing, thus, in effect, denying her an opportunity to have her request for additional cross-examinations be considered before the August 8 hearing. The applicant argues that the hearing on August 8 will not be able to proceed until she can cross-examine all of the respondent’s affiants and asserts that she will be significantly prejudiced if the hearing is delayed. The applicant also claims that the Tribunal should have resumed the motion hearing because during the June 19-20 hearing the parties were directed to reconvene the motion hearing by telephone if any issues relating to the cross-examinations arose.
I find the applicant has failed to make a prima facie case for reconsideration for multiple reasons.
First, I am not convinced that the applicant was actually denied an opportunity to bring her request for additional cross-examinations before the Tribunal. On July 13, the Tribunal directed the parties to advise it to schedule a case conference if either party wished to have additional motions heard before the August 8 hearing. This direction was entirely consistent with the Tribunal’s order of July 4. The applicant could have advised the Tribunal that she intended to bring motions for additional cross-examinations and requested a case conference as early as July 4. She did not do so.
Furthermore, as noted above, the issues before the Tribunal during the June 19-20 motion hearing were limited to the five motions previously disposed of by the Tribunal’s decision of February 13. None of the additional cross-examinations the applicant requested to include in the Tribunal’s order of July 4, first by way of clarification and then reconsideration, were before the Tribunal during the June 19-20 motion hearing. As a result, there was no basis to reconvene the June 19-20 motion hearing in order to raise additional issues that were not included in the Notice of Motion Hearing. Accordingly, the Tribunal’s direction that additional issues should be addressed by way of a case conference was appropriate.
Additionally, based on the paragraph above, I am unconvinced by the applicant’s claim that the parties were directed to reconvene the June 19-20 motion hearing to address any additional cross-examinations they might desire. The applicant has not provided context for the Tribunal’s oral direction; however, the scope of any such direction would necessarily be limited to the issues before the Tribunal, namely the five motions heard during the June 19-20 hearing.
I do not see a denial of natural justice or procedural fairness. I do see that the actions of the applicant are hindering the efforts of the Tribunal to provide an effective and efficient determination of her benefit entitlement. I also see the applicant’s repeated attempts to circumvent the Tribunal’s procedure by appropriating its reconsideration power as bordering on abuse of process.
Based on the above, I find the applicant’s request does not meet the threshold for reconsideration.
Conclusion
- This request for reconsideration is denied.
_________________________________________
Linda P. Lamoureux
Executive Chair
Safety, Licensing Appeals and Standards Tribunals Ontario
Released: August 1, 2018