Jeff Ai v. Intact Insurance Company, 2020 CanLII 95903

RECONSIDERATION DECISION

Citation: Ai vs. Intact Insurance Company, 2020 ONLAT 19-005110/AABS

Before: Avril A. Farlam, Vice Chair

Date: November 25, 2020

File: 19-005110/AABS

Case Name: Jeff Ai vs. Intact Insurance Company

Written Submissions by:

For the Applicant: Mitchell J. Barber and Fawad Siddiqui, Counsel

For the Respondent: Dylan Crosby, Counsel

OVERVIEW

1Jeff Ai (“applicant”) asks for a reconsideration of the Tribunal’s Amended Decision released on July 16, 2020 (“Decision”) in which the applicant was found to be barred from proceeding with his application because he failed to attend s. 44 insurer’s examinations without reasonable explanation. Intact Insurance Company (“respondent”) asks that the reconsideration be denied.

RESULT

2The Applicant's Request for Reconsideration is dismissed.

ANALYSIS

3The criteria for granting reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that finally disposes of an appeal are set out in Rule 18.2 (a), (b), (c) and (d), as amended. Here the applicant relies on (b), that the Tribunal made an error of law or fact such that the Tribunal would likely have reached a different decision had the error not been made.

4Reconsideration is only warranted in cases where an adjudicator has made a significant legal or evidentiary mistake preventing a just outcome, where false evidence has been admitted, or where genuinely new and undiscoverable evidence comes to light after a hearing. The onus is on the party seeking reconsideration to establish one or more of the Rule 18 grounds for reconsideration to be successful. The Tribunal has previously stated “It is well established that the test to be successful on a reconsideration request is a high one…”¹

18.2 (b) - Error of Law or Fact Such that the Tribunal Would Likely Have Reached a Different Result had the Error not been Made

5In summary, the applicant argues that in my Decision I failed to properly address:

a. how to properly interpret the Schedule;

b. that the statutory notice requirements were not met; and,

c. that the IE assessment should have proceeded via paper review and using an IE to determine MIG applicability amounts to a reverse onus.

6Having reviewed the Decision, I am satisfied that it does not contain any such errors of law or fact. I correctly stated the law concerning the applicant’s obligation to attend the IE assessments. I found that the applicant failed to do so, without reasonable explanation, and based on the evidence presented, I was entitled to make these findings. Paragraphs 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, and 27 of the Decision show that these same arguments were made by the applicant at the hearing, I considered and rejected them for the reasons expressed.

7The applicant also argues that the Tribunal made a significant error of law or fact by ruling that applicant was required to attend the IE assessment even though the applicant argued the IEs were unnecessary, duplicative and “more than reasonably necessary.” Having reviewed the Decision, I am satisfied that it does not contain any such error of law or fact. My actual decision was that the applicant was precluded from proceeding as opposed to being ordered to attend the IE. The applicant made these same arguments at the hearing and they were rejected for the reasons expressed in paragraphs 25, 26, 27 and 28 of the Decision.

8The weight to be given to evidence at the hearing is a matter to be determined by the Tribunal. I found the applicant’s evidence lacking and legal arguments unpersuasive for the reasons expressed.

9I find that the applicant has not established this ground for reconsideration. The grounds for reconsideration of a Tribunal decision are limited and specific. Rule 18.2 (b) is a two-part test requiring the applicant to establish firstly, the Tribunal made an error of law or fact and secondly, the error of law or fact was significant enough that the Tribunal would likely have reached a different result had there been no error. Here because the applicant has requested reconsideration, the onus is on him to prove his grounds and he has not done so. Instead, the applicant’s submissions appear to be an attempt to argue the case made before the adjudicator again in a new way. A reconsideration is not an opportunity to reargue one’s case or an appeal.

ORDER

10For the reasons noted above, I deny the Applicant's Request for Reconsideration.

Footnotes

1. 118-003314/AABS v. Wawanesa, 2019 CanLII 101644 (ON LAT-Reconsideration) at para 13.