RECONSIDERATION DECISION
Before: Robert Watt, Adjudicator
Tribunal File Number: 18-003910/AABS
Case Name: J. Q. vs. Co-operators General Insurance Company
Written Submissions by:
For the Applicant: Nadim Barsoum, Counsel
For the Respondent: Bruce Keay, Counsel
BACKGROUND
1This request for reconsideration was filed by the Applicant in this matter.
2It arises out of a decision in which the Tribunal found that the applicant was not entitled to non-earner benefits or to interest and an award.
3The issues that were before the Tribunal were whether the applicant was entitled to a non-earner benefit from May 24, 2016 to date and ongoing, and interest and an award.
4The Applicant submits that the Tribunal made an error of law or fact such that the Tribunal would likely have reached a different result had the error not been made.
5The Applicant seeks an order to varying the Tribunal’s decision.
RESULT
6The Applicant's request for a reconsideration is dismissed.
ANALYSIS
7The grounds for a request for reconsideration to be allowed are contained in Rule 18.2 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 procedural fairness.
b. The Tribunal made an error of law or fact such that the Tribunal would likely have reached a different result had the error not been made.
c. The Tribunal heard false evidence from a party or witness, which was discovered only after the hearing and would have affected the result; or
d. There is evidence that was not before the Tribunal when rendering its decision, could not have been obtained previously by the party now seeking to introduce it and would have affected the result.
8Reconsideration is only warranted in cases where an adjudicator has made a 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 applicant argues that the Tribunal made a mistake in law and fact by not accepting Dr. Galley’s letter dated August 30, 2021, which indicated that the applicant had suffered a complete inability to carry on his previous normal lifestyle.
9It is settled law that an adjudicator should review all evidence put before him or her, but does not need to refer to every piece of evidence in rendering a decision.1
10The absence of a reference to evidence does not render a decision unreasonable, nor does it amount to a breach of procedural fairness.2
11The Tribunal accepted the medical reports of Dr. Dessouki, Dr. Mendes and Dr. Frey as these reports were supported by the applicant’s own evidence, as set out in paragraphs [23] to [26] of the decision, over Dr. Galley’s letter. Dr. Galley’s letter was not supported by the applicant’s own testimony.
12I find therefore that the Tribunal made no error in fact or law such that the Tribunal would likely have reached a different result had the error not been made.
The Tribunal failed to exclude Dr. Dessouki’s evidence as the meeting was short and the proper draft notes were not kept of the interview.
13The applicant argues that Dr. Dessouki kept no draft materials and therefore his evidence should be discounted. The respondent argues that this doctor was available for examination and did give evidence and therefore draft notes were not necessary. Dr. Dessouki’s evidence was that he did not keep any draft materials once the report was finalized. His evidence at the hearing was that the interview from the time on intake to when he finished with the applicant was approximately an hour. Dr. Dessouki gave