C.A. v. Aviva General Insurance Company, 2020 CanLII 57388

RECONSIDERATION DECISION

Citation: C.A. vs. Aviva General Insurance Company, 2020 ONLAT 18-009624/AABS

Before:

Derek Grant

Date of Order:

07/22/2020

Tribunal File Number:

18-008624/AABS

Case Name:

C.A. and Aviva General Insurance Company

Written Submissions by:

For the Applicant:

Jeton Memeti, Paralegal

For the Respondent:

Nisaa Khan, Counsel

OVERVIEW

1C.A.’s request for reconsideration, filed on April 6, 2020, arises from the Tribunal’s April 3, 2020 decision. The decision determined that C.A.’s accident-related injuries were predominantly minor. As a result, it was unnecessary to determine whether C.A. was entitled to the disputed treatment plans.

2Both C.A. and Aviva filed submissions.

3For the reasons to follow, C.A.’s request for reconsideration is denied.

THE LAW

4There are limited grounds upon which a person can request a reconsideration. In this case, C.A. asserts that 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. C.A. asserts that she 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

5I 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

6In this case, C.A. submitted that the Tribunal made an error of law by creating and applying an incorrect test to the issues in dispute. According to C.A., my application of the MIG criteria in determining the extent of C.A.’s injuries was the incorrect test. C.A.’s position is that the correct test was the reasonable and necessary test.

7I disagree. Having found that C.A.’s injuries are predominantly minor as defined in the Schedule, are subject to both the prescribed $3,500 funding limit and treatment according to the MIG, and that the funding limit had been exhausted, it was unnecessary for me to address the issue of reasonableness and necessity.

8C.A. submits that the MIG test “is an application of incorrect principles of justice because based on the test, every single treatment plan would be found to be not reasonable and necessary”.

9Aviva submits that C.A. was found to be not entitled to the disputed treatment plans as her injuries fell within the MIG, the funding limit for which was exhausted. Aviva further submits that there was no need to determine the reasonableness and necessity of the treatment plans as a result. I agree.

10In support of her position, C.A. refers to new case law not previously referred to in her initial or reply submissions. C.A. relies on a previous Tribunal decision to argue that a DSM diagnosis is not necessary in order to be removed from the MIG.

11Aviva submits that C.A. had the opportunity to provide submissions on the case law and DSM argument, and cannot use the reconsideration request to do so. I agree. The reconsideration process is not the opportunity to advance new arguments that C.A. could have made in her initial submissions but did not.

12C.A. submits that I failed to consider evidence that supports that her injuries were not predominantly minor. I was confronted with conflicting expert reports and as a result, C.A.’s self-reporting was crucial to my decision. As indicated in the original decision at paragraph 14, most tellingly, the self-reports by C.A. undermined her claim that she sustained psychological impairments attributable to the accident that warranted removing her from the MIG.

13The Tribunal is not required to address or reference every piece of evidence or case law that is put before it. Although I am required to consider the evidence put before me by the parties, my decision is based on evidence that I find to be persuasive. The result of same not being in favour of one party is not a relevant ground for a request for reconsideration.

14The Tribunal made specific reference to the evidence of C.A. throughout the decision when weighing the evidence. I did not ignore evidence or facts but found certain evidence more persuasive over others. I find no error of law or fact that likely would have resulted in a different decision.

ORDER

15C.A.’s request for reconsideration is denied.