Tribunals Ontario Safety, Licensing Appeals and Standards Division Box 250
Toronto ON M7A 1N3
Tel: 1-844-242-0608
Fax: 416-327-6379 Website: www.slasto-tsapno.gov.on.ca
Tribunaux décisionnels Ontario Division de la sécurité des appels en matière de permis et des normes
Boîte no 250
Toronto ON M7A 1N3
Tél. : 1-844-242-0608
Téléc. : 416-327-6379 Site Web : www.slasto-tsapno.gov.on.ca
RECONSIDERATION ORDER
Before: Jonathan Batty, Associate Chair
Date: November 15, 2019
File: 19-003193/AABS
Case Name: K.N. v. Aviva Insurance Company
For the Applicant: Ryan M. Jeffries, Hillier & Hillier
ORDER
1The applicant filed a request for reconsideration on this matter on October 28, 2019 in respect of a decision from a motion order dated October 24, 2019.
2This request for reconsideration arises from an adjudicator decision to adjourn a motion. The applicant argues in their motion that the three treatment plans at issue should be payable pursuant to s. 38 of the Schedule because the respondent issued an improper denial. The respondent argued that these issues should have been raised at the case conference or the motion should request to amend the case conference report to reflect this argument as an issue in dispute. In an effort to maintain an efficient hearing process and avoid delay, the adjudicator adjourned the motion so that the issues may be addressed by the hearing adjudicator. The hearing is scheduled for February 2020.
3On February 7, 2019, the Licence Appeal Tribunal, Animal Care Review Board, and Fire Safety Commission Common Rules of Practice and Procedure, Version I (October 2, 2017) (the “Rules”) were amended. Pursuant to the amended Rule 18.1, requests for reconsideration will only be accepted on Tribunal decisions that finally dispose of an appeal. Pursuant to Rule 18.5, this change applies if the request for reconsideration relates to an order issued on or after February 7, 2019.
4The applicant submits that, in a case such as this, the liberal interpretation provisions in Rule 3 ought to be applied to vary Rule 18 in order to allow this reconsideration request despite the decision being an interlocutory one. I do not agree. Rule 18 was specifically amended to ensure that reconsideration of interlocutory matters not result in delay in matters proceeding to a hearing on the merits where an adjudicator can most effectively deal with all matters at the same time. What is being requested is not a liberal interpretation but an abrogation of Rule 18. Bifurcating the proceedings for three treatment plans when other issues are in dispute is not warranted and will delay the hearing.
5On this basis, the request for reconsideration is dismissed.
Jonathan Batty Associate Chair
Tribunals Ontario – Safety, Licensing Appeals and Standards Division
Released: November 15, 2019