RECONSIDERATION ORDER
Before: Jonathan Batty, Associate Chair
File: 17-007475/AABS
Case Name: V.M. v. Aviva General Insurance Company
For the Applicant: Jeton Memeti, Lofranco Scarola Blasi Legal Services
ORDER
1The applicant filed a request for reconsideration in this matter on March 21, 2019 in respect of a decision dated August 1, 2018.
2This request for reconsideration arises from an adjudicator’s decision denying the cost of an assessment, interest and an award pursuant to section 10 of Regulation 664, RRO 1990. The applicant is requesting the order be set aside approving the cost of the assessment, awarding interest, and an award or a new hearing.
3Pursuant to the amended Rule 18.1 of the Licence Appeal Tribunal, Animal Care Review Board, and Fire Safety Commission Common Rules of Practice and Procedure, Version I (October 2, 2017), requests for reconsideration will only be accepted if the request for reconsideration is made within 21 days of the date of the decision.
4As such, the applicant would have had to file the request for reconsideration by August 22, 2018. The applicant’s representative emailed the Tribunal on March 5, 2019 requesting a status update on the file. The case management officer responded by email, and again sent him the decision, by forwarding him the original email sent to him on August 1, 2018. The Tribunal has only one email address on file for this representative and a review of the file has determined there was no error in the addressing. While this representative stated he never received that email, there is no reason or explanation given by him as to why.
5That said, the applicant has also not met the criteria for granting reconsideration pursuant to Rule 18.2. The applicant claims “the adjudicator erred in law and in fact by failing to consider credible, reliable and un-contradicted evidence…”.
6The applicant does not provide any particulars as to how the adjudicator erred either in fact or law. The request for reconsideration is vague and provides no grounds for reconsideration. While it is asserted the adjudicator erred in law and failed to consider “credible, reliable and un-contradicted evidence”, no supporting analysis is provided.
7On this basis, the request for reconsideration is dismissed.
Jonathan Batty Associate Chair
Tribunals Ontario – Safety, Licensing Appeals and Standards Division
Released: May 9, 2019