Tribunals Ontario Safety, Licensing Appeals and Standards Division 77 Wellesley Street West, 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
77 rue Wellesley Ouest, 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 DECISION
Before: Jonathan Batty, Associate Chair
File: 17-003649/AABS & 17-004947/AABS
Case Name: P.K.P. v. Aviva General Insurance Company & D.D.P. v. Aviva General Insurance Company
Written Submissions By:
For the Applicant: Victoria Tchilikova, Paralegal
For the Respondent: Paul Omeziri, Counsel
OVERVIEW
1This request for reconsideration arises from identical motion decisions in two applications arising from the same accident. The applicants in these matters brought these motions to obtain an interlocutory order from the Licence Appeal Tribunal (the “Tribunal”) to exclude certain insurer’s reports from being admitted as evidence. Those motions were denied. Consequently, the applicants have requested a reconsideration of the Tribunal’s orders in each proceeding.
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 these matters. As the relevant aspects of the decisions and requests are identical, I will deal with them together.
3As explained below, I deny these requests for reconsideration.
FACTS
4The applicants’ requests for reconsideration arise from two motion decisions dated March 19, 2018. The decisions state that the applicant’s position was that the reports should be excluded because they were filed after Nov 30, 2017, which was after the date that the tribunal had ordered the exchange of documents.
5The applicants submit that the decisions, which found the reports to be relevant, mischaracterised the applicant’s position on the motion. The applicants submit the reports should have been excluded because “they were not served in accordance with the SABS, as prescribed under s. 38(13)” which provides as follows:
Within 10 business days after receiving the report of an examination conducted under section 44 for the purpose of the treatment and assessment plan, the insurer shall give a copy of the report to the insured person and to the regulated health professional who prepared the treatment and assessment plan
6That discrepancy is the alleged error upon which these reconsideration requests hinge.
DECISION AND REASONS
7Rule 18.1 of the Rules of Practice and Procedure requires a request for reconsideration to include the reasons for the request, specifying the criteria under Rule 18.2.
8As the respondent notes, the applicant’s request for reconsideration does not actually specify which criteria under Rule 18.2 are being relied on. However, I take from the context that the applicant is submitting “[t]he Tribunal made a significant error of law or fact such that the Tribunal would likely have reached a different decision had the error not been made” [Rule 18.2(b)].
9The reconsideration process provides parties the ability to obtain a remedy for serious errors that materially affect a decision or outcome for a party. Inconsequential mistakes do not qualify for reconsideration as they do not prevent a just outcome.
10It is not clear to me that the adjudicator made an error. The applicant’s motion materials were vague and it is not clear that the date the applicant was referring to was the date the respondent received a report and then sent it to the applicant. In such a case, the resulting confusion or error may not be attributed to the adjudicator.
11Even if I am wrong on this reading of the motion record, the error the adjudicator is alleged to have made does not meet the criteria for granting a reconsideration.
12As the adjudicator’s decision noted, regardless of any potential missed date, the reports were directly relevant to the issues in dispute.
13The alleged error is immaterial as the real issue to decide was whether or not the documents are relevant. It is clear from the decision that the adjudicator considered and applied this test.
CONCLUSION
14These requests for reconsideration are dismissed. The motion decisions stand and these matters will proceed to written hearing on the evidence and submissions the parties have already provided.
Jonathan Batty
Associate Chair
Tribunals Ontario – Safety, Licensing Appeals and Standards Division
Released: June 11, 2019