RECONSIDERATION ORDER
Before: Jonathan Batty, Associate Chair
File: 17-004556/AABS
Case Name: S.R. v. Aviva Insurance Company
For the Respondent: Eric Grossman and Patrick Baker, Zarek Taylor Grossman Hanrahan LLP
ORDER
1The respondent filed a request for reconsideration in this matter on March 20, 2019 in respect of a preliminary decision dated February 5, 2018 (which was amended for reasons not material to this request on February 13, 2018).
2The preliminary decision decided whether or not the applicant was statute-barred from proceeding with her claim of income replacement benefits. The adjudicator decided that the denial letter was not clear and unequivocal and, thus, the claim was not statute-barred and could proceed to hearing.
3The respondent argues that the adjudicator made an error of law in deciding that its denial letter was not clear and unequivocal.
4Pursuant to 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), a request for reconsideration must be made within 21 days of receipt of the order. The present request for reconsideration was filed more than 12 months after the deadline. In its request, the respondent asks the Tribunal to use its discretion under section 7 of the Licence Appeal Tribunal Act, S.O. 1999, c.12, Sched G., to extend the relevant timeline. The respondent claims that because it filed an appeal to Divisional Court within the 21 day timeline, it clearly demonstrated its intention to pursue a review of the decision contemplated by the Tribunal’s Rules.
5I am not satisfied that s. 7 of the Licence Appeal Tribunal Act, S.O. 1999, c.12, Sched G. applies in these circumstances. In my view, that section clearly speaks to the notice required to commence a proceeding at the Tribunal or an appeal from a Tribunal decision to an appellate court. If there is any flexibility to amend the deadline to file a reconsideration request, it is found in Rule 3, which allows an adjudicator to liberally interpret or vary a rule in order to ensure a fair, efficient and timely resolution.
6However, I see no reason to apply such flexibility in this case. Allowing this reconsideration would not promote an efficient or timely resolution to the application. I see no reason to believe that the respondent could not have filled a reconsideration to the Tribunal and an appeal to the Divisional Court in order to respect the timelines of both processes. The respondent chose to pursue the appeal through Divisional Court and was unsuccessful. To allow the respondent to now advance its reconsideration would add further delay to the proceedings for the applicant, who has already been made to wait for and respond to the respondent’s appeal.
7On this basis, the request for reconsideration is dismissed.
Jonathan Batty Associate Chair
Tribunals Ontario – Safety, Licensing Appeals and Standards Division
Released: May 8, 2019