RECONSIDERATION DECISION
Before: Thérèse Reilly, Adjudicator
Tribunal File Number: 19-002005/AABS
Case Name: M.H. v. Travelers Insurance
Written Submissions by:
For the Applicant: Mark Stoiko, Counsel
For the Respondent: Tim Crljenica, Counsel
OVERVIEW
1This Request for Reconsideration (the Request) was filed by the applicant pursuant to the Tribunal’s Common Rules of Practice and Procedure.1 The Request arises out of a decision released in May 25, 2021 in which the Tribunal found the applicant was not entitled to an income replacement benefit (the IRB) for the pre-104 week period from August 10, 2017 to August 10, 2019 (the pre-104 week IRB) and the post-104 week period from August 11, 2019 to date and ongoing. The Tribunal found the applicant’s injuries were minor and fell within the Minor Injury Guideline. As such he was entitled to a maximum of $3500 (the MIG limits). The Tribunal dismissed the applicant’s claim for an award under section 10 of Regulation 664. The claim for interest was also dismissed.
2The applicant submits that the Tribunal violated the rules of procedural fairness on the basis that the adjudicator ignored relevant caselaw, which was set out in two factums produced by the applicant but not referenced in the decision. Further, the applicant submitted that the Tribunal should have found MIG to be of no force and effect.2 Moreover, the Tribunal made multiple errors of law such that the Tribunal would likely have reached a different decision. He argues that the Tribunal made an error in law by ignoring a referenced case and discussion on the issue of causation and ignored the “but for test”.3 The applicant maintains the Tribunal made an error of fact in respect of the issue of dizziness and an error of law in its decision to prefer the report and evidence of Dr. West over that of Dr. Pilowsky.4 In the applicant’s submission, these errors violated procedural fairness.
3The respondent denies the Tribunal made an error of law such that the Tribunal would likely have reached a different decision.