Safety, Licensing Appeals and Standards Tribunal Ontario
Licence Appeal Tribunal
Automobile Accident Benefits Service
Mailing Address: 77 Wellesley St. W., Box 250, Toronto, ON M7A 1N3
Tel:
416-314-4260
1 800-255-2214
TTY:
416-916-0548
1 844-403-5906
FAX:
416-325-1060
1 844-618-2566
Website: www.slasto.gov.on.ca/en/AABS
Tribunaux de la sécurité, des appels en matière de permis et des normes Ontario
Tribunal d'appel en matière de permis
Service d'aide relative aux indemnités d'accident automobile
Adresse postale : 77, rue Wellesley Ouest, Boîte no 250, Toronto ON M7A 1N3
Tél. :
416-314-4260
1 800-255-2214
ATS :
416-916-0548
1 844-403-5906
Téléc. :
416-325-1060
1 844-618-2566
Site Web : www.slasto.gov.on.ca/fr/AABS
RECONSIDERATION DECISION
Before: Jonathan Batty, Associate Chair
File: 18-001613/AABS
Case Name: L.C. v. Security National Insurance Company
Written Submissions By:
For the Applicant: Aleksandra Pace
For the Respondent: Andrew Papadimitropoulos
Introduction
1This request for reconsideration arises from a motion decision on December 11, 2018 denying a request to adjourn a case conference resumption on December 13, 2018.
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 this reconsideration request.
3As explained below, I deny this request for reconsideration.
The Facts
4The parties first participated in a case conference on June 11, 2018. At that time the respondent advised that they had received an application for Catastrophic (“CAT”) Determination (OCF-19) four days prior on June 7, 2018.
5A resumption of the case conference took place on October 15, 2018 and another was scheduled for December 13, 2018. The Case Conference Order, dated October 15, 2018, directed the parties to attend the December resumption fully prepared to discuss settlement and any other hearing related matters.
6On November 16, 2018, the respondent advised the Tribunal that the required CAT assessments would not be completed prior to December 13, 2018 and requested the resumption be adjourned until after they were completed. This letter was sent to the Tribunal and the applicant. The Tribunal advised the respondent to submit a Request for Adjournment Form.
7On December 11, 2018 the respondent filed the Request for Adjournment Form and provided three alternative dates to which the applicant consented. The grounds for requesting the adjournment were that the two required assessments were not scheduled until January 16 and February 6, 2019 respectively.
8The initial case conference on June 11, 2018 scheduled this matter to be heard in person from March 18 to 22, 2019.
Decision and Reasons
9Rule 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.
10The criteria for reconsideration under Rule 18.2 are as follows:
(a) The Tribunal acted outside its jurisdiction or violated the rules of natural justice or procedural fairness;
(b) The 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;
(c) The Tribunal heard false or misleading evidence from a party or witness, which was discovered only after the hearing and likely affected the result; or
(d) There is new evidence that could not have reasonably been obtained earlier and would have affected the result.
11The respondent submits that proceeding with the resumption was procedurally unfair because, until the applicant attends the two assessments, the respondent will not be able to properly defend this claim.
12I do not agree.
13While having completed assessments may assist with substantive settlement discussions, resumptions are useful to re-assess the date and length of the hearing and to clarify procedural issues. A case conference is not the hearing where a claim is finally adjudicated. At the December 13, 2018 case conference, the respondent was not being called on to finalize its defence to the claim.
14The case conference took place on December 13, 2018 and the adjudicator stayed the resumption pending the outcome of this reconsideration request. In effect, this reconsideration request adjourned the case conference. This result is of concern to the Tribunal.
15In future, the parties to this proceeding and the parties in other proceedings should not use the reconsideration process as an indirect means of obtaining an adjournment for a case conference where a motion decision has denied it. Regardless of whether or not a party believes a case conference will be “fruitful”, that decision is for the Tribunal to make and its decision should be respected. The reconsideration process should not be used by any party as a tactic for circumventing such a decision.
16The respondent had a high onus to meet to engage this remedy and entirely failed to do so. Minor or inconsequential procedural or substantive mistakes do not qualify for reconsideration and, in this case, there was not any mistake made by the adjudicator. Reconsideration is only warranted in cases where an adjudicator has either made a significant legal or evidentiary mistake preventing a just outcome, where false evidence has been admitted, or where genuinely new and undiscoverable evidence comes to light after a hearing. The motion decision at issue was simply not the type of situation warranting review under Rule 18.
CONCLUSION
17For the reasons noted above, this request for reconsideration is denied.
18The parties have indicated that they wish to reconvene the case conference to any of the following dates: March 13, 14 or 15, 2019. The Case Management Officer will contact the parties in order to schedule a resumption of this matter for one of the dates provided.
Jonathan Batty Associate Chair
Licence Appeal Tribunal
Released: January 8, 2019