Raveenthiran v. Aviva Insurance Canada, 2021 CanLII 88142

Raveenthiran v. Aviva Insurance Canada

Citation: Raveenthiran v. Aviva Insurance Canada, 2021 ONLAT 19-014703/AABS - R

RECONSIDERATION DECISION

Before: Lindsay Lake, Adjudicator

Date of Order: 09/17/2021

Tribunal File Number: 19-014703/AABS

Case Name: Mekala Raveenthiran v. Aviva Insurance Canada

Written Submissions by:

For the Applicant: No Submissions Received

For the Respondent: Alexander V. Dos Reis, Counsel

OVERVIEW

1The respondent, Aviva Insurance Canada, filed a request for reconsideration of the March 18, 2021 Decision on a Preliminary Issue¹ of the Licence Appeal Tribunal – Automobile Accident Benefit Services (Tribunal).

2In the preliminary issue decision, I found that the applicant, Mekala Raveenthiran, was not statute-barred from proceeding with her claim for income replacement benefits (IRBs) due to the limitation period in s. 56 of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule – Effective September 1, 2010 (Schedule).²

3The respondent requested a reconsideration of the preliminary issue decision. The respondent submitted that I made significant errors of law and/or fact such that I would likely have reached a different result had the errors not been made.

4The applicant filed no submissions in response to the respondent’s request for reconsideration.

RESULT

5The respondent’s request for reconsideration is dismissed. The preliminary issue decision did not finally dispose of an appeal and, therefore, does not satisfy the requirements of Rule 18.1 of the Licence Appeal Tribunal, Animal Care Review Board, and Fire Safety Commission’s Common Rules of Practice and Procedure, Version I (October 2, 2017) as amended (Rules).

ANALYSIS

6On February 7, 2019, the Tribunal amended Rule 18 of the Rules such that the Tribunal will only reconsider a decision that finally disposes of an appeal.

7In this matter, had the applicant not been the successful party in the preliminary issue decision, she could have sought a reconsideration because her claim for IRBs would have been extinguished due to the limitation period in s. 56 of the Schedule. In other words, the applicant’s appeal regarding IRBs would have been finally disposed of, triggering Rule 18.1. The applicant, however, was successful in the preliminary issue decision, as I found that she was not statute-barred from proceeding with her claim for IRBs at the Tribunal. The respondent, therefore, cannot avail itself of the provisions of Rule 18, as the preliminary issue decision was interlocutory in nature. The Tribunal cannot grant reconsideration of an interlocutory order. As the request for reconsideration is not properly within Rule 18, it is therefore dismissed.

CONCLUSION

8For the reasons set out above, the respondent’s request for reconsideration is dismissed.

9The matter will proceed to a case conference. The parties are directed to contact the Tribunal within 14 days from the date of the release of this reconsideration decision to arrange a case conference. If they cannot agree, the Tribunal will set a case conference date.

Lindsay Lake Adjudicator Tribunals Ontario - Licence Appeal Tribunal

Footnotes

1. 1Raveenthiran v. Aviva Insurance Canada, 2021 CanLII 28689 (ON LAT) (the “preliminary issue decision”).
2. 2O. Reg. 34/10.