RECONSIDERATION DECISION

Citation: S.R. v. Traders General Insurance Company, 2021 ONLAT 17-004556/AABS - R

Before:

Thérèse Reilly, Adjudicator

Date:

February 23, 2021

File:

17-004556/AABS

Case Name:

S.R. v. Traders General Insurance Company

Written Submissions by:

For the Applicant:

James D. Armstrong, Counsel

For the Respondent:

Patrick Baker, 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 July 2020 in which the Tribunal found the applicant was entitled to an income replacement benefit for the pre-104 week period from May 30, 2015 to December 28, 2016 (the pre 104 week IRB). The Tribunal found the applicant was not entitled to an income replacement benefit for the post-104 week (the post 104 week IRB) period from December 29, 2016 to date and ongoing. The Tribunal dismissed the applicant’s claim for an award under section 10 of Regulation 664. Interest was allowed on the overdue payments in respect of the pre 104 week IRB claim.

2The applicant submits that the Tribunal made a significant error of law or fact² such that the Tribunal would likely have reached a different decision. The applicant submits the adjudicator made errors of both fact and law in misapprehending the evidence and asserts the adjudicator relied on facts not in issue and incorrectly applied the test for income replacement benefits. The applicant requests the Tribunal find the applicant is entitled to the payment of an income replacement benefit for the post 104 week from December 29, 2016 to date and ongoing. The applicant also asserts the decision violates the rules of natural justice³ and procedural fairness in that the adjudicator failed to summarize, analyze or consider important evidence that was not supportive of the insurer’s position.⁴

3The respondent denies the Tribunal made a “significant error” ⁵ of law or fact such that the Tribunal would likely have reached a different decision. It submits the Request be dismissed. It denies the decision violates the rules of natural justice⁶ and procedural fairness. It further objects to the Reply filed by the applicant on the basis that it introduces new arguments not raised at the hearing or in its Response and ought not to be considered in this Request.

4The applicant further alleges bias on the part of the adjudicator and requests the Request and award claim be heard by a different adjudicator. The respondent opposes the applicant’s request that the Request and the award claim be heard and decided by a different adjudicator. The respondent states the applicant disputes the outcome of the decision but offers no evidence of bias to support this claim. I agree and deny the request to have the Request and award claim be heard by a different adjudicator as no evidence was submitted on bias.

RESULT

5The applicant’s Request for Reconsideration is dismissed.

ANALYSIS

6The 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 likely 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 seeking to introduce it and would have affected the result.

7In its Request for Reconsideration, the applicant summarized the following claims under Rule 18.2(a) and Rule 18.2 (b). The applicant submits the adjudicator made errors of both fact and law in misapprehending the evidence relating to the following issues:

1. in respect of the applicant’s return to her volunteer work at the camp for the deaf⁷;

2. in determining and relying on the fact that neither Dr. Ta nor Dr. Waisman had obtained a detailed work history of applicant’s employment⁸;

3. by relying on the applicant’s statement that she chose not to attend a stress management course as this was not a fact in issue⁹;

4. in respect of the evidence of the applicant’s limitations and impact on the benefit claimed¹⁰;

5. regarding the applicant’s wedding planning activities¹¹;

6. in assigning Dr. Jugundan’s report inappropriate weight;¹²

7. in the characterization of the applicant’s care of her terminally ill father¹³; and

8. by incorrectly applying the test for an income replacement benefit to the facts and evidence¹⁴ including by failing to consider the evidence of Dr. Ta, Dr. Waisman and Dr. Feges regarding the inability to work.¹⁵

8The respondent submits that the facts as found were heard, read, weighed and considered by the adjudicator in rendering the decision. The respondent submits this Request is an attempt by the applicant to reargue her case which failed at the hearing. It reasons the applicant has failed to prove the Tribunal made an error in fact or law and maintains the decision disentitling the applicant to an income replacement benefit post 104 weeks is the correct application of the law to the facts as found. It submits the Request should be dismissed.

9The respondent states that the adjudicator reviewed the evidence and submissions of the parties and based on that review correctly determined that the applicant had failed to discharge her burden of proof on a balance of probabilities. It maintains the adjudicator engaged in a thorough analysis of the evidence and provided detailed reasons to support the findings. The reasons were clear and intelligible. It states the fact that the applicant disagrees with these determinations does not amount to a “serious”¹⁶ error of fact or law justifying a reconsideration.

10The respondent objects to the Reply¹⁷ on the basis that the applicant is attempting to introduce new evidence that was not presented in the Request and asks that the Reply be struck from the record. It states the Reply submissions are not in response to any arguments in the Response of the respondent. The Reply contains new arguments not advanced at the hearing or in the Response. As such the respondent submits it is deprived of any opportunity to address these arguments which is prejudicial to it and a breach of procedural fairness. The Reply also exceeds the stated page length.¹⁸

REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION

11In order to vary the original decision of the Tribunal under Rule 18.2 (b), the Tribunal must be found to have made an error of law or fact, such that the Tribunal would likely have reached a different result had the error not been made. When the Tribunal decision is read in its entirety, it is clear the decision provides a well-reasoned analysis of the submissions and evidence of both parties and supports the decision to deny the applicant’s claim for an income replacement benefit post 104 weeks. I am not persuaded by the applicant’s submissions that the Tribunal made an error in law or fact to warrant a reconsideration. The applicant has failed to persuade me that the Tribunal made an error in fact or law such that it would likely have reached a different result had the error not been made.

12The applicant bears the burden to prove entitlement to the benefits claimed. The adjudicator did not find that the applicant met her burden of proof in respect of the post 104 week IRB claim. The reasons for that decision were outlined in great detail in paragraphs 31 to 46 of the decision and are further discussed below. As discussed in paragraph 48 of the decision, a respondent may but is not obliged under section 44 (1) of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule-Effective September 1, 2010 (the Schedule)¹⁹ to obtain an insurer examination of the applicant in respect of a claim made. An insurer examination may have been useful and provided additional evidence. However, in this appeal the insured person bears the burden of proof to prove his or her claim. The adjudicator found that the applicant did not meet her burden of proof in respect of the post 104 week IRB claim.

13I am also not persuaded that the decision violates the rules of procedural fairness on the basis that the adjudicator failed to summarize, analyze or consider important evidence that was not supportive of the insurer’s position. The medical evidence of the applicant’s three doctors including the family doctor as well as the limitations of their medical evidence were discussed at length and considered in the decision in paragraphs 16 to 21, 27 to 29, 34, 36, 44 and 45. The medical reports of the respondent were discussed in paragraphs 22 to 24 and 41.

14I agree with the respondent that that Reply is not to be considered in this Request. The Reply introduces new arguments and facts not raised at the hearing, nor in the Request for Reconsideration or in the Response. In the Reply for example the applicant argues she is the only party to introduce medical evidence at the hearing. As it is uncontradicted, the applicant maintains it must be accepted as is by the adjudicator who is not a medical expert. Another example of new evidence raised by the applicant in the Reply refers to the applicant’s yearly salary as being $24,688. This was not introduced into evidence at the hearing. The right of Reply is a limited one and does not afford the opportunity to a party to introduce new evidence or arguments. To allow the Reply as filed is procedurally unfair and a violation of natural justice as the respondent has no opportunity to respond to the arguments advanced. The Reply has not been considered in this decision.

The Tribunal did not err under Rule 18.2(b)

Description of Camp for the Deaf Volunteer Work Activity

15I will consider and address the arguments advanced by the applicant as listed above in paragraph 7. I agree that an error was made by the adjudicator as stated in paragraph 43 of the decision that the applicant had testified that she had performed various work tasks at the camp after the accident when in fact these were tasks that she had performed prior to the accident. The applicant claims the adjudicator relied on this erroneous testimony in arriving at the decision to deny the post 104 week IRB claim. I am not persuaded by the arguments made by the applicant. I acknowledge the error was made as alleged and as set out in paragraph 43. However, these work tasks were correctly identified by the adjudicator in paragraph 10 of the decision. For a successful reconsideration, the error must be an error such that the Tribunal would have reached a different conclusion. I find this error would not have led to a different conclusion.

16Moreover, these work tasks as a volunteer at the camp for the deaf are only one of several factors considered by the adjudicator in arriving at the decision to deny the post 104 week IRB claim as discussed in paragraphs 31 to 46 of the decision. The adjudicator considered the evidence of the applicant of her post 104 week activities in the retail setting as a volunteer at a consignment shop, her training as a wedding planner, her completion of wedding planning projects in the post 104 week period and caregiver activities all of which taken in totality demonstrated to the adjudicator that the applicant did not meet the post 104 week IRB test.

The adjudicator misapprehended the evidence of Dr. Ta and Dr. Waisman

17The applicant contends that the adjudicator made a significant error by referring to the fact that neither Dr. Ta nor Dr. Waisman obtained a detailed work history from the applicant as part of their assessment and reports. In paragraph 27 of the decision the adjudicator noted the absence of a detailed work history from both doctors in their reports. I find no error as alleged. The evidence provided by both doctors at the hearing established they have not provided any current or updated assessment or examination of the applicant since filing their reports in late October and November 2017. Dr. Ta testified he last saw the applicant in October 2017. Dr. Waisman testified his psychiatric perspective is dated as of November 2017. The applicant offered no updated or addendum reports from either medical expert. The applicant could have but did not present updated medical reports from either Dr. Ta or Dr. Waisman. I disagree with the applicant that an error was made in this instance. The adjudicator found correctly that the doctor’s opinions based on their testimony and as set out in their reports were limited in their application and not sufficient to support the claim for a post 104 week IRB claim. I am not persuaded by the arguments advanced by the applicant. There was no error and if I am wrong on that position, this does not amount to an error that would result in a different conclusion.

18It was outlined in the decision at paragraph 29 that no vocational assessment had been presented into evidence and this limited the evidence to be considered by the adjudicator. The applicant refers to Dr. Waisman’s testimony that based on his medical opinion that the applicant could not work, a vocational assessment would not be required.²⁰ I note that Dr. Waisman is a psychiatrist and a statement on whether a vocational assessment is or is not required in an IRB claim is beyond the specialty of a psychiatrist.

19The Tribunal is not required to refer in its decision to every piece of evidence that it considers in making a factual finding. Nor is the purpose of a request for reconsideration to question the weight assigned to the evidence by the adjudicator who is entitled to prefer some pieces of evidence over others. The Tribunal weighed the evidence of Dr. Ta and Dr. Waisman against the evidence of the applicant and her family doctor as to the pre and post 104 week work activities. This is outlined in paragraphs 25 to 28, 33, 34 and 44 of the decision. The adjudicator assigned more weight to the testimony of the applicant and family doctor in assessing her ability to return to work post 104 weeks. For example, the family doctor, as set out in paragraphs 20, 21, 34 and 44 of the decision, testified the applicant’s condition and pain was improving. The applicant testified at length about her wedding planning activities after the wedding in the post 104 week period, training as a wedding planner, volunteer work activities at the consignment shop and the limited activity at the camp for the deaf which is evidence of her work activities and ability and to do this work in the post 104 week period. The adjudicator gave less weight to the medical reports of Dr. Ta and Dr. Waisman and more weight to the evidence of the applicant and her family doctor.

Attending a stress management course as this was not a fact in issue

20The applicant states the adjudicator made an error when stating that the applicant testified to being under stress but chose to not attend a stress management course and this is an error when this fact is not in issue. I find this is not a valid ground for reconsideration. I disagree that this was not a fact in issue. The applicant in several instances during testimony stated she suffered from stress as a result of the accident.²¹ She also discussed this with her family doctor (see paragraph 21 of the decision). The adjudicator simply noted that although a stress management program had been made available to the applicant, she had not attended.

The Applicant 's Testimony about her Limitations

21The applicant states the adjudicator erred by misapprehending the applicant’s evidence by not providing a fulsome description of her limitations. The limitations of the applicant are described in detail in paragraphs 8 to 14 and 33 to 35 and 41 of the decision. I find no error by the Tribunal and thus have no reason to interfere with the assessment of the evidence or the decision. The adjudicator reviewed the applicant’s testimony, and the medical evidence presented by both parties in assessing the evidence of her functional abilities and limitations. The applicant testified to the improvement in her condition post 104 week as did her family doctor. This is referenced in paragraphs 20, 21, 33 and 34 of the decision. Paragraph 33 refers to the testimony by the applicant that she had an improved range of motion from 2017 onwards, that she could lift 20 pounds (albeit not repetitively), that she can drive short distances and that she could lift her grandson. The applicant's argument fails to reference the evidence from the applicant who admitted to improvements in her physical condition after the accident as did the family doctor. The medical notes of the family doctor are set out in great detail in paragraph 20 of the decision. He noted that in August 2018, the applicant’s neck and back pain were improving. She appeared generally well. I find no error by the Tribunal and no reason to interfere with its assessment of the evidence and decision.

Wedding Planning Business Post-Accident

22The applicant claims the adjudicator misapprehended her involvement in wedding planning activities after the accident and relied on facts not supported in evidence. For example, the applicant states the adjudicator erred in characterizing the wedding planning business as one that would give her time and flexibility. The adjudicator she submits also failed to consider the applicant’s evidence that she did not earn a profit from the business and thus it could not be considered commensurate in status and reward and as such a viable prospect for employment. As well, the adjudicator failed to consider the opinion of the occupational therapist in her assessment of the wedding planning activity. I do not agree that these are valid grounds to grant a request for reconsideration. I find that the Tribunal provided sufficient reasons and explanation for weighing the evidence the way that it did. I find that the applicant has failed to establish the Tribunal made any error in fact or law such that it would likely have reached a different result had the error not been made.

23To begin with, the evidence from the applicant is that she began the wedding planning business prior to the accident, first as a hobby and then for fun. She then went onto to train as a wedding planner and took a wedding planning course. She further testified that after the wedding and in the post 104 week period, she was obligated to and did complete 5 to 6 weddings. Not only did she complete the weddings but Ms. Okell in her occupational report indicated that the applicant in 2017 took on one additional wedding planning project.²² The evidence is that the applicant did this work and completed it after the accident and during the post-104 week period.

24The decision acknowledges that the applicant testified she needed assistance from family members to complete the wedding planning projects, but nonetheless, I agree with the respondent that this is evidence of work she did in fact complete. It is work that she is trained for. It is evidence of experience in the wedding planning field. Moreover, despite her claims of limitations, she took on one more wedding project in 2017 indicating the ability to take on more work. Moreover, the applicant provided testimony about how she completed the work and the assistance she needed to complete the projects. For example, she testified she needed frequent rest periods and took breaks when needed. This testimony supports the adjudicator’s finding that the self-employed business did and does provide the applicant with flexibility over her time and duties. I find the applicant has failed to establish the Tribunal made any error in fact or law such that it would likely have reached a different result had the error not been made.

25Further, the only evidence of profit or lack of profit earned from this business is a statement from the applicant in testimony that she made no profit. However, no details or explanations were provided about not earning a profit. The evidence did not identify the time period involved or applicable wedding planning projects. The adjudicator stated that the absence of a wage is only one factor to consider.

26As to the argument the adjudicator did not consider Ms. Okell’s evidence, it must be repeated that an adjudicator is not obliged to address every piece of evidence or every argument made or every case referred to by a party in its submissions. Ms. Okell’s report is dated November 2017 and has limited application when it is considered against the testimony of the applicant who testified about the wedding planning activities that she completed after the accident and during the post 104 week period. Ms. Okell is an occupational therapist and not a vocational assessor. The purpose of the report was to assess the applicant’s level of functioning in her areas of daily life including personal care, housekeeping and leisure. The report commented that in February 2017 her pain levels were improving. She could walk more, do household tasks and cook. The report does not describe or opine on the level of functioning of the applicant with respect to employment. Ms. Okell outlines as reported to her the applicant’s wedding planning activities and mentions some challenges to complete these. The report does not opine about employability. It re-iterates the applicant’s testimony about carrying out the wedding planning activities in the relevant period.

27The evidence that the applicant did in fact complete the wedding planning projects successfully with assistance after the accident combined with the other factors considered by the adjudicator, such as training and volunteer work is sufficient evidence of ability to engage in any employment or self-employment for which she is reasonably suited by education, training or experience.

28The evidence from the applicant indicates she is experienced and trained as a wedding planner. This evidence supports the finding that the applicant does not meet the post 104 week test. The evidence establishes the applicant is trained and has experience in the wedding planning field which is a form of employment for which she is reasonably suited by education, training or experience.

29The decision noted that the applicant mentioned to her family doctor that she felt she was not employable in most situations. She did state that work is possible in cases where she could rest, could change positions, would have limited time on a keyboard ²³ (see subparagraph xvi of paragraph 20 the decision). The wedding planning business offered this flexibility, contrary to the allegations made by the applicant, and based on the testimony of the applicant is evidence to support the denial of the post 104 week IRB claim.

Weight assigned to the IE report of Dr. Jugnundan

30The applicant maintains the adjudicator incorrectly attributed weight to the evidence of Dr. Jugnundan. I disagree. In paragraphs 24 and 41 of the decision, the adjudicator referred to the doctor’s recommendation made when he assessed the applicant in an OCF-18 for physiotherapy dated June 2018 and stated in that report that a return to work was encouraged as it may improve health outcomes. I agree with the respondent that the applicant overstates the degree of weight assigned to this report and is not an error that warrants granting this Request.

The Applicant as Caregiver for her Father

31The applicant maintains that the adjudicator erred in the assessment of the caregiving activities of the applicant in caring for her terminally ill father and misapprehended the evidence of the applicant’s caregiving activities for her dying father. For example, the applicant maintains she did not make meals for her father but rather helped feed him meals that her mother made for him. I find the argument is without merit. The caregiving activities were mentioned by the applicant to her family doctor in November 2017 when she stated to her family doctor that she had been in a period of crisis for 14 months as she was taking care of her father. The term "caregiver" can account for various activities both physical and emotional. I disagree that taking care of a dying father for a period of 14 months is not evidence of an ability to perform caregiving activities. The family doctor described the applicant as "primary care provider" for her dying father. There is evidence of activities undertaken by the applicant that fall within the term "caregiver" and sufficient to establish another facet of the applicant’s employability.²⁴

The Post 104-week IRB test and Evidence of Dr. Ta, Dr. Weisman and Dr. Feges

32The applicant maintains the adjudicator incorrectly applied the post 104 week test for the income replacement benefit. She states the adjudicator cited the correct test for the post 104 IRB is as stated by Arbitrator Sapin as “a reasonably suited employment means employment in a competitive real-world taking into account employer demands for reasonable hours and productivity. The work should be comparable in terms of status and wages.” She submits the adjudicator “did not analyze what reasonably suitable employment is” nor the applicant’s “ability to maintain employment in a competitive real-world taking into account employer demands for reasonable hours and productivity.”²⁵ The applicant claims the adjudicator failed to properly summarize, consider and apply the evidence of Dr. Ta, Dr. Waisman and Dr. Feges, made an error in one paragraph in using the term for which the applicant is ‘reasonably’ suited by experience, education, training and the adjudicator erred by comparing volunteer work with competitive work. I disagree with the claims made. To state the test is as alleged by the applicant is to assert that one looks only to employment in a real competitive world and would ignore education, training and experience and ignore the statutory language specified in section 6(2)(b) of the Schedule. I find the applicant has failed to persuade me 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.

33The correct test to apply and that was applied to determine eligibility for the post 104 week IRB claim is set out in paragraphs 3 and 30 of the decision. The applicant must demonstrate a complete inability to engage in any employment or self-employment for which she is reasonably suited by education, training or experience. If she meets this test, she would qualify for the post 104 week IRB claim. Based on the totality of the evidence the adjudicator did not agree that the applicant demonstrated a complete inability to engage in any employment or self-employment for which she is reasonably suited by education, training or experience. As outlined above, the evidence of Dr. Feges, the family doctor, and Dr. Ta and Dr. Waisman were considered and discussed on a fulsome basis by the adjudicator. The role of a volunteer with no wages, such as the applicant’s volunteer work at the consignment shop for several hours a month (the applicant mentioned to her family doctor that the work was for several hours a week), was discussed. The adjudicator in paragraph 40 stated work in a volunteer retail setting “provides evidence of some functional ability to work in a retail setting” (emphasis added). In other words, volunteer work is work and evidence of work rather than evidence of an inability to work.

34The applicant misapprehends the totality of the evidence that led the adjudicator to determine the applicant did not meet the test for the post 104 week IRB claim. The adjudicator provided a detailed analysis of the factors considered to determine whether the applicant did or did not meet the test. In summary, the applicant testified about her work at the camp for the deaf (which was limited and less than what she used to do), the wedding planning projects completed after the accident, her regular volunteer work for a number of years as a volunteer at a consignment shop for at least two to four times per month, her training and experience as a wedding planner, and some skills at caregiving for her father. The adjudicator’s analysis was well reasoned as evidenced by paragraphs 31 to 46 of the decision. I find the applicant has failed to persuade me 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.

35The evidence relating to the activities as a volunteer at the consignment shop, at the camp for the deaf, the training and experience as a wedding planner which she admitted to completing after the accident, and caregiving activities are all factors which taken as a whole led the adjudicator to conclude the applicant did not suffer a complete inability to engage in any employment or self-employment for which she is reasonably suited by education, training or experience. As outlined, the adjudicator considered and reviewed the evidence provided by Dr. Ta, Dr. Waisman and Dr. Feges and also reviewed and analyzed this against the medical evidence of the respondent’s IE assessors, Dr. Scott McKenzie and Dr. Luczak, psychiatrist and Dr. Jugnundan, general practitioner. The decision also outlined that Dr. Ta in cross examination qualified his opinion and clarified that in his report he did not give an opinion about the applicant being incapable to engage in any competitive employment in the post 104 week period. He admitted he was not asked about this in his report.²⁶ His opinion was limited to whether the applicant could return to her pre-104 week employment.

Violation of Natural Justice and Procedural Fairness

36The applicant maintains that by failing to consider, summarize and analyze important medical evidence that is not supportive of the insurer’s position this amounts to a breach of natural justice. I find no merit in this argument. As outlined above, the adjudicator summarized, considered and analyzed the medical evidence presented by the applicant and the medical reports of the respondent as set out in paragraphs 23 to 25 of the decision. This evidence was analyzed by the adjudicator and weighed against the evidence presented by the applicant and the medical evidence of the respondent. There is no evidence to support the position that the Tribunal violated the rules of procedural fairness in arriving at this decision.

Request for Award Was Properly Dismissed

37The request for an award was properly dismissed in paragraph 53 of the decision.

Conclusion

38In conclusion, when the Tribunal’s decision is read in its entirety, it is clear the decision provides a well-reasoned analysis of the submissions and the medical evidence presented by both parties. The adjudicator’s role is to assess the medical evidence presented and provide detailed reasons, in this case for finding limitations with the evidence from Dr. Ta and Dr. Waisman. Based on a review of the evidence, I find no error in the conclusions reached by the adjudicator and the weight assigned to the medical reports of Dr. Ta and Waisman. The adjudicator carefully reviewed, summarized and considered the evidence presented but was not persuaded by the evidence of the applicant. She did not meet her burden of proof.

39For the reasons noted above, I dismiss the applicant’s Request.

Thérèse Reilly, Adjudicator
Tribunals Ontario – Safety, Licensing Appeals and Standards Division

Footnotes

1. 1Licence Appeal Tribunal, Animal Care Review Board, and Fire Safety Commission Common Rules of Practice and Procedure, Version I (October 2, 2017) as amended. (“Common Rules of Practice and Procedure”).
2. 2The applicant in paragraph 3 of its submissions incorrectly outlines the criteria in granting a reconsideration under Rule 18.2. She relies on Rule 18.2 (b) and states the decision ought to be reconsidered as the “Tribunal having made a significant error of law or fact such that the Tribunal would likely have reached a different decision had the error not been made.” This criteria only applies to decisions issued before January 28, 2019. The correct criteria applicable to this reconsideration is set out in Rule 18.2 (b) amended on February 7, 2019. The applicable criteria are outlined in paragraph 5 (b) of my decision as set out in Rule 18.2 amended February 7, 2019.
3. 3The applicant also refers to former Rule 18.2 (a) as the second ground for reconsideration being the “Tribunal …violated the rules of natural justice or procedural fairness.” This criteria applies to decisions issued before January 28, 2019.
4. 4Paragraphs 53 to 60 of the Request for Reconsideration.
5. 5The respondent in paragraph 5 of the Response also refers to the criteria from the former Rule 18.2 (b). This decision refers to the criteria set out in Rule 18.2 amended February 7, 2019.
6. 6The respondent in paragraph 73 refers to the criteria in former rule 18.2 (a).
7. 7Paragraphs 6 to 8 of the Request for Reconsideration.
8. 8Paragraphs 10 to 12 of the Request for Reconsideration.
9. 9Paragraphs 13 to 15 of the Request for Reconsideration.
10. 10Duplicate numbered paragraphs 12 to 15 and paragraph 48 of the Request for Reconsideration.
11. 11Paragraphs 16 to 21 of the Request for Reconsideration.
12. 12Paragraphs 22 and 23 of the Request for Reconsideration.
13. 13Paragraphs 24 and 25 of the Request for Reconsideration.
14. 14Paragraphs 26 to 33 of the Request for Reconsideration.
15. 15Paragraphs 34 to 47 of the Request for Reconsideration
16. 16Paragraph 4 of the Response.
17. 17Respondent’s letter to the Tribunal dated November 17, 2020.
18. 18The Tribunal specified a maximum of 10 pages, the applicant’s Reply is 13 pages, single spaced.
19. 19Ontario Regulation 34/10 as amended.
20. 20Paragraph 46 of the Request for Reconsideration.
21. 21See for example page 12, transcript of the testimony of the applicant.
22. 22Report of Ms. Okell, occupational therapist, tab 6, applicant request for reconsideration, page 8.
23. 23Page 50 transcript of evidence of the applicant.
24. 24Transcript of the family doctor evidence pages 33 and 34.
25. 25Paragraphs 26 and 28 of the Request for Reconsideration.
26. 26Page 44 to 47 of the transcript of the evidence of Dr. Ta.