RECONSIDERATION DECISION
Before: Robert Watt
Tribunal File Number(s): 18-004980/AABS 18-004997/AABS 18-005001/AABS
Case Name: [A.D.G.], [S.F.] & [A.G.] vs. Allstate Canada
Written Submissions by:
For the Applicant: K. Yazdani
For the Respondent: Diana M. Oliveira
OVERVIEW
1This request for reconsideration was filed by the applicant in this matter.
2It arises out of a decision in which the Tribunal dismissed the applicant’s claims.
3The issues that were before the Tribunal were:
i. Was the incident an accident pursuant to section 3 of the Schedule? In particular, did MG pass away as a result of the motor vehicle accident?
4The Tribunal found that the MG’s death was not caused by the accident.
5The applicant submits the Tribunal violated the rules of natural justice or procedural fairness and made several significant errors of law and fact. The applicant is seeking an order varying the Tribunal’s decision.
6Pursuant to s. 17(2) of the Adjudicative Tribunals Accountability, Governance and Appointments Act, 2009, S.O. 2009, c. 33, Sched. 5, I have been delegated responsibility to decide this matter in accordance with the applicable rules of the Tribunal.
RESULT
7The applicant’s request for reconsideration is dismissed.
ANALYSIS
8The grounds for a request for reconsideration are contained in Rule 18 of the Tribunal’s Common Rules of Practice and Procedure.
9The ground that the applicant argues applies to this case is as follows:
a. That the Tribunal violated the rules of natural justice or procedural fairness because it did not apply the appropriate legal test in reviewing and analyzing the evidence to reach its conclusion.
b. That the Tribunal made several significant errors of law and fact by:
Failing to take into account, the mental stress of the deceased as the cause of the accident and thereby ignoring the medical reports.
Over exaggerating the pre-existing health conditions of the deceased,
Correct Legal Test
10The applicant argues that the Tribunal made an error in law by not properly defining and analyzing the evidence. The applicant argues that the Tribunal failed to take into account the mental stress caused by the accident, as the contributing factor that resulted in the applicant’s death. The Tribunal did however deal with the issue of mental stress in its decision and made a finding that there was not enough evidence to relate any mental stress resulting from the accident, to the cause of the applicant’s death.
11The Tribunal applied the correct legal test as set out in sections 3(1), 26 of the Schedule and set out in paragraphs 18, 21-25 of the decision.
12I therefore find that there was no significant error of law in that the correct legal test was applied, as set out in the Schedule.
Significant Errors on the facts
13The facts supporting the decision were based on the Coroner and Dr. Sharma’s reports that MG’s death was a result of his pre-accident medical issues and the bleeding that resulted from the fall.
14The Tribunal did not over- exaggerate the pre-medical history of the deceased, but only took into account, that there were serious pre-accident medical issues. These pre-accident medical issues were also acknowledged by the Coroner and Dr. Sharma, in their decisions as to how the death occurred
15There was not enough evidence to show that the applicant’s death was a result of stress as set out in paragraph [31] of the decision. The Tribunal did acknowledge the issue of stress, but not as the major cause of MG’s death.
16There were no medical reports put before the Tribunal stating that stress of the accident caused the death of MG. Dr. Mohammady told the deceased to avoid any stress. Dr. Sharma in his report indicated that stress may have been a factor. No further explanation was given by Dr. Sharma as to whether stress played a major or a minor role in the death. Both the Coroner’s report and Dr. Sharma’s reports clearly indicate that the death of MG was a result of his pre-accident medical issues and the bleeding, that resulted from the fall.
17The Tribunal accepted the reports of Dr. Sharma and the Coroner as they are definitive as to the cause of MG’s death
18I therefore find that there was no misinterpretation or disregard of medical evidence relating to the death of MG. I find that the Tribunal made no significant errors of fact such that the Tribunal would likely have reached a different decision had the errors not been made.
CONCLUSION
19For the reasons noted above, I dismiss the applicant’s request for reconsideration.
Released: February 3, 2020
Robert Watt Adjudicator