H.M. v. Aviva Insurance Canada, 2019 CanLII 101662

RECONSIDERATION DECISION

Before: Lindsay Lake

Date: September 13, 2019

File: 18-004734/AABS

Case Name: H.M. v. Aviva Insurance Canada

Written Submissions By:

For the Applicant: Kateryna Vlada, Paralegal

For the Respondent: No submissions received

OVERVIEW

1On June 14, 2019, the applicant, H.M., filed a request for reconsideration of the May 28, 2019 decision (the "decision") of the Licence Appeal Tribunal – Automobile Accident Benefit Services (the "Tribunal"). In the decision, the Tribunal found that H.M. was not entitled to non-earner benefits ("NEBs") for the period of June 17, 2016 to date and ongoing.

2H.M. submits that the Tribunal made several significant errors of fact and law such that the Tribunal would likely had reached a different decision had the errors not been made. H.M. also submits that there is new evidence which could not have reasonably been obtained earlier and would have affected the results of the hearing. H.M. not only requests a rehearing, but also requests a complete reversal of the decision and a finding that he is entitled to the full amount owed under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule - Effective September 1, 2010 (the ''Schedule'') for NEBs.

3In response to H.M.'s June 14, 2019 request for reconsideration, the Tribunal sent correspondence to the parties on July 17, 2019 acknowledging its receipt of H.M.'s request for reconsideration. H.M. was invited to file supplementary submissions by July 31, 2019 and the respondent, Aviva General Insurance ("Aviva") was invited to file responding submissions by August 15, 2019. No further submissions, however, were received from either party.

4Pursuant to s. 17(2) of the Adjudicative Tribunals Accountability, Governance and Appointments Act, 2009,¹ I have been delegated the responsibility to decide this matter in accordance with the applicable rules of the Tribunal.

RESULT

5H.M.'s request for reconsideration is dismissed.

ANALYSIS

6The grounds upon which a request for reconsideration can be granted are set out in Rule 18.2 of the Licence Appeal Tribunal, Animal Care Review Board, and Fire Safety Commission's Common Rules of Practice and Procedure, Version I (October 2, 2017) (the "Rules").

7The grounds that H.M. submits apply in this matter are Rule 18.2(b), that the Tribunal made several significant errors of fact and law, and Rule 18.2(d), that there is new evidence that could not have reasonably been obtained earlier and would have affected the result.

Errors of Fact and Law

8In his June 14, 2019 correspondence to the Tribunal, H.M. argues that the Tribunal made significant errors in law and fact including an inappropriate interpretation/application of case law, the omittance of crucial and substantial testimony/facts and the misinterpretation of the statutory requirements pursuant to the Schedule. No further particulars or specifics were provided to the Tribunal as to these alleged errors.

9In order to meet the high onus to warrant the reconsideration of a decision, a request for reconsideration must provide some evidence and argument to the Tribunal.² Moreover, Rule 18.1 requires a party to file all of its submissions for the reconsideration request with the Tribunal within 21 days of the date of a decision.

10H.M.'s request for reconsideration is vague and fails to provide any specifics or argument as to the alleged errors in the decision. There is no reference to which case law was allegedly inappropriately interpreted or applied, which testimony or facts were omitted or which of the Schedule's requirements were misinterpreted. I find that H.M. has failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that the Tribunal made any error of fact or law in the decision.

New Evidence

11H.M. also submitted in his June 14, 2019 correspondence to the Tribunal that there is new evidence that could not have reasonably been obtained earlier and would have affected the result of the hearing. H.M. further argues that medical assessments were unreasonably denied by Aviva, "and before the hearing, were approved at the case conference, but were not available for the hearing/submissions."

12I again find that H.M.'s submissions on new evidence is vague and fails to identify which medical assessments were not available for the hearing. Additionally, H.M. failed to submit any of the alleged new evidence as part of his request for reconsideration. For these reasons, I find that H.M. has failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that a reconsideration should be granted under Rule 18.2(d).

CONCLUSION

13For the reasons outlined above, I dismiss H.M.'s request for reconsideration as he failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that a reconsideration should be granted under Rule 18.2.

Footnotes

1. 1S.O. 2009, c. 33, Sched. 5.
2. 2See B.A. v Gore Mutual Insurance Company, 2019 CanLII 83591 (ON LAT) at para. 19.