RECONSIDERATION DECISION
Before: Jonathan Batty, Associate Chair
File: 17-008965/AABS
Case Name: R. M. vs. Aviva Insurance Canada
Written Submissions By:
For the Applicant: Cassandra Roy
For the Respondent: Megan Cui
OVERVIEW
1This request for reconsideration arises from a Case Conference Order of the Licence Appeal Tribunal (the "Tribunal") in which the Tribunal ordered the preliminary issue of whether R.M., the applicant, is precluded from applying to the Tribunal to be addressed at the same time as the hearing on the substantive issues between the parties. Aviva Insurance Canada ("Aviva"), the respondent, now requests the Tribunal's order be varied to have the preliminary issue be addressed prior to the hearing on substantive issues.
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 reconsideration request.
3As explained below, I grant this reconsideration request.
THE FACTS
4The Tribunal held a Case Conference in this matter on April 12, 2018. One of the issues addressed at the Case Conference was whether the preliminary issue of whether R.M. is precluded from applying to the Tribunal for failing to attend and insurer's examination would be addressed prior to, or on the same day, as the hearing on the substantive issues scheduled for August 15 and16, 2018.
5Following the Case Conference, the Tribunal ordered the preliminary issue would be heard during the August 15 and16 hearing on the basis that the R.M. requested a full in-person hearing on all issues.
6Aviva now asks that I vary the Tribunal's Order and order a preliminary hearing for the determination of whether R.M. is precluded from applying to the Tribunal before the hearing on the substantive issues.
DECISION AND REASONS
7Aviva argues the Tribunal made a significant error of fact by misapprehending R.M.'s position regarding hearing format. Aviva claims R.M. did not object to the preliminary issue being addresses prior to the August 15 and16 hearing and, in fact, that her counsel recognized the benefits of a preliminary hearing. Aviva further claims that R.M. is not opposing its request for reconsideration or the relief it seeks.
8Aviva's reconsideration request was copied to R.M.'s counsel and, on May 31, 2018, the Tribunal wrote to R.M. and invited responding submissions by June 14, 2018. On June 28, 2018, Ms. Roy, a paralegal at R.M.'s counsel's office, emailed the Tribunal confirming R.M. would not file responding submissions.
9Aviva also argues that hearing the preliminary issue at the same time as hearing the substantive issues has the potential to cause unnecessary delay and costs for both parties, as well as the Tribunal.
10Specifically, Aviva notes that if R.M. is precluded from applying to the Tribunal, the time and resources the parties will have expended in relation to the hearing on the substantive issues will be thrown away.
11Alternatively, if R.M. is precluded from applying to the Tribunal, Aviva intends to argue that the hearing on the substantive issues be stayed until R.M. attends an insurer's examination. Aviva, claims both parties would have to prepare for the hearing on the substantive issues and incur the related costs twice under such a scenario. Aviva further argues that in both cases, the Tribunal would have to bear additional costs associated with providing an Adjudicator and facilities.
12Aviva's request for reconsideration was copied to R.M., who has chosen not to file submissions in response to Aviva's request for reconsideration. As a result, I find R.M. does not object to a preliminary hearing on the threshold question of whether or not he is precluded from applying to the Tribunal.
13Furthermore, I agree with Aviva that holding a preliminary hearing before the hearing on the substantive issues is likely to result in a more expedient process and help the parties avoid unnecessary costs.
14Based on the above, I find that Aviva has met the threshold for reconsideration.
CONCLUSION
15This request for reconsideration is granted.
16The Tribunal will hold a preliminary hearing for the determination of whether R.M. is precluded from applying to the Tribunal before the hearing on the substantive issues.
17The parties should contact the Tribunal to schedule the preliminary hearing.
Jonathan Batty
Associate Chair
Safety, Licensing Appeals and Standards Tribunals Ontario
Released: August 10, 2018