RECONSIDERATION DECISION
Before: Robert Watt
Date of Order: 01/04/2022
Licence Appeal Tribunal File Numbers: 20-007653/AABS and 20-007658/AABS
Case Names: Rong Fu Chen and Su Fen Chen v. Travelers Insurance Company of Canada
Written Submissions by:
For the Applicant: Yu Jiang, Paralegal
For the Respondent: Devan Marr, Counsel
BACKGROUND
1This request for reconsideration was filed by the applicants in this matter.
2It arises out of a decision in which the Tribunal found that the applicants were not entitled to a non-earner benefit, any medical and rehabilitation benefits, nor any interest.
3The preliminary issues before the Tribunal were whether the documents set out in Tabs 2, 20 and 21 of the applicants’ written submissions are excluded from the evidence for failure to be produced in accordance with Adjudicator Johal’s order issued on November 20, 2020? The substantive issues that were before the Tribunal were: whether the applicants were entitled to a non-earner benefit in the amount of $185.00 per week for the period April 29, 2018 to April 29, 2020, and to $2,200.00 for a psychological assessment and interest?
4The Applicant submit that the Tribunal:
- Violated the rules of procedural fairness; and
- The Tribunal made an error of law and fact such that the Tribunal would likely have reached a different decision had the error not been made.
5The Applicants are seeking an order:
a. Overturning the Tribunal’s decision
or
b. For new a videoconference hearing.
RESULT
6The applicants 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.
9A reconsideration does not provide an opportunity to put forth the same arguments and evidence that the Tribunal has already rejected.
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
10The applicants argue that an error of law was made by the Tribunal by not finding the applicants were principally financially dependent on their daughter. The applicants cite the free rent and the access by the applicants to the daughter’s bank account.
11The applicants are rearguing their case with the same arguments that the Tribunal noted in paragraph [19] of the decision.
12The Tribunal noted in paragraphs [19], [23], [24] and [25], why it disagreed with the applicants’ arguments.
13The applicants are rearguing their case on the same evidence.
14I find that the Tribunal has not made an error of law or fact such that the Tribunal would likely have reached a different result had the error not been made.
The Tribunal violated the rules of procedural fairness;
15The applicants argue that they were not given the chance for a videoconference hearing to allow the applicants to be heard and to explain as to how they are principally dependent on their daughter.
16The applicants agreed at the case conference, held on November 19, 2020 to a written hearing.
17The applicants brought a motion on March 2, 2021 to change the hearing format from a written hearing to a video conference hearing. The respondent opposed the motion. Adjudicator Hunter denied the motion.
18I find that therefore the Tribunal did not violate the rules of procedural fairness.
CONCLUSION
19For the reasons noted above, the Applicants’ request for reconsideration is dismissed.
Robert Watt Adjudicator Tribunals Ontario – Licence Appeal Tribunal
Released: January 4, 2022