RECONSIDERATION DECISION
Before: Avril A. Farlam, Vice Chair
Tribunal File Number: 19-013428/AABS
Case Name: Leyla Ladene v. lntact Insurance Company
Written Submissions by:
For the Applicant: Kwaku Bona, Paralegal
For the Respondent: Leanne Zawadzki, Counsel
OVERVIEW
1This request for reconsideration was filed by Leyla Ladene (“applicant”).
2It arises out of an April 9, 2021 decision (“Decision”) in which I found the applicant is not entitled to receive statutory accident benefits pursuant to the Ontario Schedule because she does not meet the statutory requirements for eligibility.
3The applicant asks that the Decision be set aside and an Order be made that the applicant is entitled to have her case dealt with under the Schedule, or alternatively, an Order for a new hearing, and costs of this request.
Applicant’s Reconsideration Request Made Under Outdated Rule
4The applicant submits that the Tribunal made “significant”1 errors such that the Tribunal would have likely reached a different decision had the errors not been made. This wording comes from a previous version of Rule 18 (b) which has now been replaced by Rule 18.2 (b) of the Licence Appeal Tribunal, Animal Care Review Board, and Fire Safety Commission Common Rules of Practice and Procedure, Version I, October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 (“Rules”). Rule 18.5 provides that Rule 18, as amended, applies to any reconsideration of a decision issued after February 7, 2019. The Decision was released April 9, 2021 and therefore this reconsideration is governed by Rule 18 of the Rules, as amended, and the applicant should have made its reconsideration request under Rule 18.2 (b) of the Rules, as amended.
5Although neither party made submissions on this error, I am of the view that the failure of the applicant to request reconsideration under the current Rule 18.2(b), as amended, should not be fatal to her reconsideration request. In order to avoid putting the applicant to the expense and delay of re-filing the reconsideration request under the amended Rule 18.2(b) and putting the respondent to the expense and delay of re-filing its response, pursuant to Rule 3.1(a) and (b) of the current Rules I am allowing the applicant’s reconsideration request to proceed. I find that allowing the applicant’s reconsideration request to proceed is necessary to facilitate a fair, open and accessible process and to allow effective participation by both parties and to ensure an efficient, proportional and timely resolution of the reconsideration proceeding. I will consider the applicant’s ground for reconsideration under Rule 18.2(b) to be made under Rule 18.2(b), of the current Rules, as amended.
RESULT
6The applicant’s request for reconsideration is dismissed.
ANALYSIS
7The grounds for a request for reconsideration to be allowed are contained in Rule 18.2 of the Rules, as amended. The applicant makes this request under Rule 18.2 (a) which is that the Tribunal acted outside its jurisdiction or violated the rules of procedural fairness, and also under Rule 18.2 (b), which is 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.
8In summary, the applicant submits in her initial and reply reconsideration submissions that I acted outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction in my interpretation of ss. 268 (1), 226 (2) and 227(1) of the Insurance Act, R.S.O. 1990 (“Act”) and ss. 3 (1)(a)(i) of the Ontario Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule – Effective September 1, 2010 (Schedule), and made errors of fact and law by a) failing to articulate the position of the applicant contrary to the Vavilov2 dicta and b) by failing to be bound by stare decisis and denying meaningful access to justice.
9The respondent submits the applicant has no grounds for reconsideration and requests the reconsideration be denied.
10I note that the applicant’s submissions express what appears to be a general dissatisfaction with the Tribunal’s recent decisions, including my Decision. The applicant submits “…since January 2020 the writer has made several first instances, and reconsideration representations to the LAT. In all, submissions were made by stating the law, as much as possible, by invoking the Vavilov trilogy, other SCOC dicta and other higher Court decisions. In all, the respective decision makers have ignored or failed to address submissions so made. The within decision is no exception3….So, it is doubtful whether there is the rule of law at the LAT…”4 General dissatisfaction with the Tribunal and dissatisfaction with the Decision is not a ground of reconsideration.
11Having reviewed the Decision, I find that I did not act outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction in my interpretation of s. 268 (1), 226 (2) and 227(1) of the Act and s. 3 (1)(a)(i) of the Schedule. After considering the submissions, evidence and case law put forward by both parties, I found that the applicant was not living in Ontario at the time of the accident and was not insured under an Ontario motor vehicle policy with the result that she is not an “insured person” for purposes of the Schedule and cannot claim Ontario accident benefits. The applicable legislative analysis is set out in paragraphs 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 of the Decision.
12Further, in this legislative analysis, no error of law or fact was made, let alone an error of fact or law such that I would likely have reached a different result. Although the applicant may disagree with the Decision, reconsideration is not an opportunity for the applicant to re-argue her position.
13Having reviewed the Decision for other errors of law or fact, I find that I did not make any errors of law or fact, including any errors of law or fact such that I would likely have reached a different result had the error not been made.
14Although the applicant submits that I ignored or failed to address her submissions. This suggestion is unfounded. The crux of the applicant’s position is set out in paragraphs 1 and 3 of the Decision, specifically that the applicant believes she can elect to have benefits under the Schedule. The respondent’s position was similarly set out in paragraph 2 of the Decision. I am not required to set out all of the details of the applicant’s position in the Decision or to refer to each submission, piece of evidence or legal authority put forward by the applicant. Further, refusing to accept the applicant’s position is not an error of law or fact.
15Although the applicant submits that I made significant error of law, such that a different conclusion would have been reached, this suggestion, again, is unfounded. This was a preliminary issue hearing regarding whether the applicant met the entitlement requirements for statutory benefits pursuant to the Ontario Schedule. In deciding this issue, I correctly considered the applicable legislation.
16The applicant’s submission on reconsideration that she is entitled to benefits in Ontario because she was involved “in an accident in or outside Ontario” is an attempt by the applicant to reargue her case in a different way and demonstrates that the applicant does not agree with the Decision. As I have already stated above, dissatisfaction with the result is not a ground of reconsideration. Not accepting the applicant’s submissions, evidence or case law at the hearing is not an error of law.
17The conclusion reached in the Decision was within my mandate as an adjudicator and was exercised appropriately and fairly and for the reasons set out in paragraphs 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 of the Decision.
18The applicant has not established her grounds for reconsideration. The grounds for reconsideration of a Tribunal Decision are limited and specific. In order to succeed on a reconsideration request, at least one of the grounds must be proven. Here, because the applicant has requested reconsideration, the onus is on the applicant to establish her grounds and she has not done so. Instead, the applicant’s submissions appear to be an attempt to reargue her case in a new way. A reconsideration is not an opportunity to reargue one’s case or an appeal.
CONCLUSION AND ORDER
19For the reasons noted above, I dismiss the applicant’s request for reconsideration of my Decision dated April 9, 2021 and the request for costs.
Avril A. Farlam
Vice Chair
Tribunals Ontario – Licence Appeal Tribunal
Released: July 12, 2021
Footnotes
- Applicant’s Reconsideration submissions dated May 17, 2021, para. 7.
- Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65
- Applicant’s Reconsideration submissions dated May 17, 2021, para. 3.
- Applicant’s Reconsideration submissions dated May 17, 2021, para. 5.