RECONSIDERATION DECISION
Before: Derek Grant
Tribunal File Number: 19-002266/AABS
Case Name: A.N. and The Dominion of Canada General Insurance Company/Travelers Insurance Company
Written Submissions by:
For the Applicant: Kevan Whylie, Counsel
For the Respondent: Caroline Meyer, Counsel
OVERVIEW
1A.N.’s request for reconsideration, filed on April 20, 2020, arises from the Tribunal’s March 30, 2020 decision (“the decision”). The decision determined that A.N.’s accident-related injuries were predominantly minor. As a result, it was unnecessary to determine whether A.N. was entitled to the disputed treatment plans.
2Both A.N. and The Dominion filed submissions.
3For the reasons to follow, A.N.’s request for reconsideration is denied.
THE LAW
4There are limited grounds upon which a person can request a reconsideration. In this case, A.N. asserts that the Tribunal met the following criteria outlined in Rule 18:
(i) The Tribunal acted outside its jurisdiction or violated the rules of procedural fairness; and
(ii) The Tribunal made a significant error of law and of fact such that the Tribunal would likely have reached a different decision had the error(s) not been made.
5A.N. asserts that he therefore is entitled to a reconsideration pursuant to section 18.2(b) of The Licence Appeal Tribunal, Animal Care Review Board, and Fire Safety Commission Common Rules of Practice and Procedure, Version I (October 2, 2017) (“Rules”).
DISCUSSION AND REASONS
6I find that the Tribunal did not act outside its jurisdiction nor did it violate the rules of procedural fairness. I also find that the Tribunal did not make a significant error of law or fact such that the Tribunal likely would have reached a different decision if it had not made the error.
Error of Law
7In this case, A.N. submitted that the Tribunal misapprehended the evidence and that “misapprehension rises to the level of an error of law”, as set out below. A.N. notes both a violation of procedural fairness and a significant error of law or fact. A.N.’s submits that the Tribunal failed to consider any medical evidence, and that the Tribunal was biased in relying on the surveillance evidence of The Dominion. As A.N.’s arguments are based on the same point, the evidence that was before the Tribunal, I will address A.N.’s two grounds for reconsideration together.
8A.N. asserts that there is no reference to the medical evidence. A.N. submits that the Tribunal failed to address specific medical evidence.1 Despite this claim, A.N. provides no evidence or argument of how this misapprehension of evidence would have caused the Tribunal to have reached a different decision.
9The Dominion submits that the medical evidence was considered, namely at paragraph 16 of the decision, wherein it states, “despite his [A.N.] self-reporting and medical evidence”. Further, in the decision, I specifically reference the medical evidence of Dr. Paton.
10Dominion further submits that A.N.’s request for reconsideration is essentially an effort to “revisit failed arguments”. Dominion’s position is that rather than pointing to a significant error of law or fact, A.N. requests that “the Tribunal revisit its original arguments, re-weigh the evidence and come to a conclusion which favours A.N.’s position”.
11Both A.N. and The Dominion acknowledge that the Tribunal is not required to expressly address every piece of evidence, case law or argument made by a party. The onus is on A.N. to establish that the Tribunal met the criteria he claims, as set out in Rule 18. A.N. has not met his onus.
12The Tribunal made specific reference to the evidence of A.N. in the decision when weighing the evidence. I did not ignore evidence or facts but found certain evidence more persuasive over others, specifically, the surveillance evidence. I find no failure of procedural fairness or error of law or fact that likely would have resulted in a different decision.
ORDER
13A.N.’s request for reconsideration is denied.
Derek Grant
Adjudicator
Tribunals Ontario- Safety, Licensing Appeals and Standards Division
Released: July 8, 2020