RECONSIDERATION DECISION
Before: Jonathan Batty, Associate Chair
Date: July 12, 2018
File: 17-002160/AABS
Case Name: H.S. vs. RBC General Insurance Company
Written Submissions By:
For the Applicant: Olando Vinton
For the Respondent: Not Applicable
OVERVIEW
1This request for reconsideration arises from an oral decision of the Licence Appeal Tribunal (the “Tribunal”) denying a motion by H.S., the applicant, to stay the Tribunal’s proceedings. H.S. now asks that I reconsider the Tribunal’s order.
2Pursuant to her authority under s. 17(2) of the Adjudicative Tribunals Accountability, Governance and Appointments Act, 2009, S.O. 2009, c. 33, Sched. 5, the Executive Chair delegated to me her responsibility to decide this matter.
3As explained below, I deny this request for reconsideration.
FACTS
4H.S. brought a motion to request a stay of the hearing of his application pending the decision of the Ontario Superior Court regarding his claim for damages against the Toronto Police Service and an officer of the Toronto Police Service.
5RBC General Insurance Company, the respondent, objected to H.S.’s motion on the basis that the matter before the Ontario Superior Court was completely unrelated to the issues before the Tribunal.
6The Tribunal denied H.S.’s motion by an oral decision on June 18, 2018 and included its reasons for doing so in its Interim Order, dated July 10, 2018, in which it granted H.S.’s request for an adjournment to file this request for reconsideration.
7Under Rule 18 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedure, H.S. now requests that I overturn the Tribunal’s oral decision and stay the hearing of his application.
DECISION AND REASONS
8Rule 18.1 requires a request for reconsideration to include the reasons for the request, specifying the applicable criteria under Rule 18.2. Similarly, the Notice of Motion form, which H.S. filed, instructs the moving party to “provide details explaining why [they] believe the Tribunal should grant [their] request.”
9Under Rule 18.2, one or more of the following four grounds needs to be established:
(1) the Tribunal acted outside its jurisdiction or violated the rules of natural justice or procedural fairness;
(2) the Tribunal made a significant error of law or fact such that the Tribunal would likely have reached a different decision;
(3) 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,
(4) there is new evidence that could not have reasonably been obtained earlier and would have affected the result.
10The rule affords the Tribunal the ability to remedy serious breaches of procedural fairness or errors that materially affect decisions. In respect of interlocutory decisions or orders, it gives the Tribunal the necessary tools to get a proceeding back on track for a just and timely resolution.
11Reconsideration is only warranted in cases where an adjudicator has made a significant legal or evidentiary mistake preventing a just outcome, where false evidence has been admitted, or where genuinely new and undiscoverable evidence comes to light after a hearing.
12To meet the high onus required to obtain reconsideration of a decision, a requester must provide some evidence and argument to the Tribunal.
13H.S.’s request does not provide any basis for reconsideration. While the request alleges there has been a denial of natural justice and a significant error of law or fact, all that has been submitted is a two paragraph affidavit stating H.S. believes the oral decision of June 18, 2018 should be reconsidered and provides no supporting particulars or facts. A party is not entitled to reconsideration simply because it asserts an order is in error; it must provide grounds supporting that assertion.
14Were the Tribunal to entertain this request, it contains nothing material to which the respondent could reply.
15H.S. has failed to make a prima facie case that the Tribunal’s oral decision includes any sort of error that merits reconsideration.
CONCLUSION
16This request for reconsideration is denied.
Jonathan Batty
Associate Chair
Safety, Licensing Appeals and Standards Tribunals Ontario
Released: July 12, 2018