<!--mc:cls:cover-masthead-->
James v. Aviva General Insurance
<!--mc:cls:cover-meta-->
**Citation:** James v. Aviva General Insurance, 2020 ONLAT 19-007068/AABS
**RECONSIDERATION ORDER**
**Before:** D. Stephen Jovanovic, Associate Chair
<!--mc:cls:cover-meta-->
**Date:** 11/19/2020
**File:** 19-007068/AABS
**Case Name:** James v. Aviva General Insurance
**For the Applicant:** Jeton Memeti, Paralegal
**For the Respondent:** Mark Vella, Counsel
---
<!--mc:close:case-cover-->
## Reasons for Decision
[1] The applicant filed a request for reconsideration in this matter on November 2, 2020 in respect of a decision dated and released on October 5, 2020.
[2] The respondent delivered its submissions in response to the request on November 2, 2020 and raised the following two preliminary objections to the request.
[3] The Licence Appeal Tribunal, Animal Care Review Board, and Fire Safety Commission Common Rules of Practice and Procedure, Version I (October 2, 2017) were amended. Pursuant to the amended Rule 18.1, requests for reconsideration are to be made within 21 days of the date of the decision. The Rules also require that the request include all submissions in support of the request. The respondent submitted that the request was untimely and did not include any submissions as to how the adjudicator erred in fact or law. The respondent relies in the Tribunal decision in V.M. v. Aviva General Insurance Company, 17-007475/AABS.
[4] The principal issue decided by the adjudicator in her October 5, 2020 decision was that the applicant was not entitled to $2,260.00 for a chronic pain assessment recommended by All Health Medical in a treatment plan submitted to the respondent on April 30, 2019.
[5] The applicant submitted that the adjudicator “erred in law and in fact by failing to consider credible, reliable and un-contradicted evidence in determining that the Applicant has met the burden of proof that he sustained physical and psychological impairments and is entitled to such treatment.” No explanation has been provided as to what that “credible, reliable and un-contradicted evidence” was or how it would have affected the burden of proof. The criteria for granting a reconsideration under Rule 18.2 is that the “Tribunal made an error of law or fact such that the Tribunal would likely have reached a different result had the error not been made”.
[6] The applicant did indicate in the request that further submissions would follow. No such submissions have been received.
[7] Requests for reconsideration should be dealt with in a timely fashion and parties should follow the Rules. In this matter, the applicant’s initial request was in fact untimely and appears not to have included all submissions in support of the request. The applicant did not request that the Tribunal extend the time period for the filing of the initial the request, as the Tribunal has the authority to grant (contrary to the submission of the respondent), or for additional submissions. The submissions included in the request, if they can be called submissions, are not sufficient to grant the request.
[8] Accordingly, the request for reconsideration is dismissed.
________________________
D. Stephen Jovanovic
Associate Chair
Licence Appeal Tribunal
Tribunals Ontario
<!--mc:open:case-tail-->
Released: November 19, 2020
<!--mc:close:case-tail-->
minicounsel