RECONSIDERATION DECISION
Before: Robert Watt
Case Name: K. W. et Aviva General Insurance
Written Submissions by:
For the Applicant: Trianta Law / Gus Triantafillopoulos
For the Respondent: Aviva Trial Lawyer / Adina Strom
OVERVIEW
1This request for reconsideration was filed by the applicant in this matter. It arises out of a decision in which I found that the applicant was entitled to a weekly income replacement benefit (“IRB”) in the amount of $2,685.71 for the period from July 5, 2016 to September 9, 2016 and from February 28, 2018 to April 15, 2018. The Tribunal also found that the applicant was not entitled to receive two claimed medical benefits in the amounts of $1,320.77 and $2,900.00.
2The applicant seeks an order quashing the decision and ordering a rehearing on all parts of the matter.
RESULT
3The applicant’s request for reconsideration is dismissed.
ANALYSIS
4The grounds for a request for reconsideration to be allowed are contained in Rule 18 of the Tribunal’s Common Rules of Practice and Procedure. A request for reconsideration will not be granted unless one or more of the following criteria are met:
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;
5The grounds that the applicant argues applies to this case is as follows:
a) The applicant submits that the Tribunal made an error of law and fact, such that the Tribunal would likely have reached a different decision.
b) The Tribunal acted outside its jurisdiction or violated the rules of natural justice or procedural fairness
The Tribunal acted outside its jurisdiction or violated the rules of natural justice or procedural fairness
6The applicant argues that the Tribunal’s decision failed to provide a comparison of his arguments, case law, or documents in the Tribunal’s analysis. The Tribunal, she argues, therefore acted outside its jurisdiction, or violated the rules of natural justice or procedural fairness.
7The Tribunal, however, did take into account the applicant’s written submissions, and submitted case law and referenced the law and the facts as set out in paras. 12-14, 16 and 22 of the Tribunal’s decision on the issues.
8The Tribunal gave weight to the arguments and case law that it thought applied in this matter.
9The Tribunal is not required to include every argument, statutory provision, decision or other detail in its reasons, or to make explicit findings on each constituent element leading to a conclusion, provided a reviewing court could understand why a decision was made and whether it was within the range of acceptable outcomes.1 The decision made in this case sets out the evidence relied on in coming to the Tribunal’s decision, and the reasons why certain evidence was preferred over other pieces of the evidence.
10I reviewed the applicant’s and the respondent’s written submissions, which included references to the evidence and law supporting those submissions. I set out in my decision why I gave more weight to some arguments, the evidence referred to, and the law and not to the other arguments, and evidence referred to. A reconsideration is not to re-weigh the arguments and evidence submitted, backing up those arguments2
11I find, therefore, that I, did not act outside my jurisdiction, or violate the rules of natural justice or procedural fairness.
The applicant submits that the Tribunal made an error of law and fact, such that the Tribunal would likely have reached a different decision.
IRB
12The applicant re-argues her position regarding the issue of passive income and what time frame should it should be applied to, if at all. The Tribunal took into account the current legislation and case law on what should be deducted from any IRB benefit, including the sections 4, 7(3)(b) of the Schedule. Reconsideration is not an opportunity to simple re-argue a position that previously failed before the Tribunal.
13The IRB found owing in the amount of $2,685.71 by the Tribunal represented a time period (July 5, 2016 to September 9, 2016, and February 26, 2018, to April 15, 2018) over which it was found to be owed. The amount of IRB found did not relate to a weekly sum, as claimed by the applicant in her submissions.
Medical Benefits
14The Tribunal set out clearly what section 15 of the Schedule required before any medical benefits had to be paid by the respondent. Psychotherapy services were approved by the respondent, which the applicant did not bother to obtain. The Tribunal found that that there was no evidence to support further psychological assessments, when the applicant had not taken the approved psychotherapy sessions. The Tribunal’s decision sets out clearly in paras. 19-22 my reasons for coming to the conclusion that the medical benefits claimed were not necessary and reasonable as required under the Schedule.
15I find that there was no issue of error of law or fact such that I would have reached a different decision. The applicant is re-arguing her position. The purpose of a reconsideration is not for re-arguing the same position.
16I find no reason to interfere with the decision on the medical benefits.
AWARD AND INTEREST
17I find that there was no error in the decision on these two issues
CONCLUSION
18For the reasons noted above, I dismiss the applicant’s request for reconsideration.
Released: July 20, 2020
Robert Watt
Adjudicator
Footnotes
- Tab 7 16-000068 v Waterloo Regional Municipalities Insurance 2017 CanLII 1919856.para15
- Tab 6 16-000929 v. TD Home and Auto Insurance Company 2017 CanLII 69239 para 19