RECONSIDERATION DECISION
Before:
Avril A. Farlam, Vice Chair
12/17/2021
Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number:
20-000099/AABS
Case Name:
Arnold Oliver Abadicio v. Economical Insurance Company
Written Submissions by:
For the Applicant:
Devika Maharaj, Paralegal
For the Respondent:
Lisa Armstrong and Suzanne Armstron, Counsel
BACKGROUND
1This request for reconsideration was filed by Arnold Oliver Abadicio (the “applicant”). It arises out of a June 22, 2021 decision (the “Decision”) in which I found the applicant sustained minor injuries as defined in the Schedule and is subject to the $3,500.00 funding limit.
RESULT
2The applicant’s request for reconsideration is dismissed.
ANALYSIS
3The grounds for a request for reconsideration to be allowed are contained in Rule 18 of the Licence Appeal Tribunal, Animal Care Review Board, and Fire Safety Commission Common Rules of Practice and Procedure, Version I (October 2, 2017, as amended February 7, 2019) (the “Rules”).
4Here, the applicant makes his request under Rule 18.2 (d), which is that 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 likely have affected the result.
5The applicant now seeks to submit as “new evidence” medical reports from Dr. Prutis dated November 5, 2020 and March 25, 2021, and the results of a March 15, 2021 MRI.
6The respondent submits that the request for reconsideration be dismissed.
7It appears that all of this evidence existed and could have been obtained prior to the decision on this written hearing being made. If the applicant required this evidence for the hearing, then he could have requested an adjournment of the hearing for more time to obtain documents, or brought a motion to allow the same into evidence. A request for reconsideration is not to be used by a party as an opportunity to try and bolster their case with evidence which could have been obtained previously.
8Even if this evidence had been before me prior to my decision, it is not convincing evidence on a balance of probabilities. I find that it is vague, lacking detail and lacking explanation of causal connection to the accident, particularly given that the earliest Dr. Prutis report is dated more than three years post-accident. Further, neither the medical records or the applicant’s submission on reconsideration adequately address how this evidence could be reconciled with the applicant’s lack of functional limitations, the fact that he returned to work approximately a month post-accident, and his subsequent work history.
9As a consequence, I find this evidence, had it been before me, would not likely have affected my decision.
10I find that the applicant has not established his grounds for reconsideration. The grounds for reconsideration of a Tribunal Decision are limited and specific. Reconsideration is only warranted in cases where genuinely new and undiscoverable evidence comes to light after a hearing which is not the case here.
11In order to succeed on a reconsideration request, the grounds must be proven. Here, because the applicant requested reconsideration, the onus is on him to establish his grounds and he has not done so. A reconsideration is not an opportunity to reargue one’s case or an appeal.
CONCLUSION AND ORDER
12For the reasons noted above, I dismiss the applicant’s request for reconsideration of my Decision.
Avril A. Farlam
Vice-Chair
Tribunals Ontario - Licence Appeal Tribunal
Released: December 17, 2021