Northbridge Personal Insurance Corporation v. Kalob Robinson
RECONSIDERATION DECISION
Before: Avril A. Farlam, Vice-Chair
Tribunal File Number: 19-009743/AABS
Case Name: Northbridge Personal Insurance Corporation v. Kalob Robinson
Written Submissions by:
For the Applicant: Linda Kiley, Counsel
For the Respondent: Edmond Paquette, Counsel
OVERVIEW
1This request for reconsideration was filed by Kalob Robinson (“respondent”).
2It arises out of a July 14, 2021 decision (“Decision”) in which I found that the respondent was not involved in an “accident” as defined in s. 3(1) of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule – Effective September 1, 2010 (“Schedule”) relating to the vehicle insured by the applicant.
3The respondent asks that the Decision be set aside because it is not within the jurisdiction of the Hearing Arbitrator and is an error of law.
4The applicant requests that the request for reconsideration be dismissed because the issue was properly framed and considered by me, the Tribunal did not exceed its jurisdiction under s. 3(1) of the Schedule, and the respondent has not established grounds for reconsideration.
RESULT
5The respondent’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 Rules, as amended. The respondent 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.
7In summary, the respondent submits that I made a determination which was not within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal and is an error of law because I determined that the incident was not an “accident” under the definition in s. 3(1) of the Schedule “relating to the vehicle insured by the applicant”. The respondent submits that this is a narrower definition than s. 3(1) and I should instead only have determined whether the incident was an “accident”. It is the respondent’s position that there is no temporal limitation to the definition in s. 3(1), nor should the analysis be limited to any particular vehicle. The respondent submits that the incident in question involved multiple vehicles and my determination cannot be limited to a particular vehicle but rather the incident must be examined as a whole in light of the consumer protection intent of the no fault scheme”.1 The respondent further submits that my determination that the “respondent was not involved in an accident as defined in s. 3(1) of the Schedule relating to the vehicle insured by the applicant” leads to an absurd substantive result for the injured respondent who now questions whether he must now, almost four years later, bring proceedings against other persons, who are not parties to this application.2
8The respondent made this same argument at the outset of the hearing by way of a request to have the application dismissed without a hearing because the issue was too narrowly framed. The respondent’s argument was rejected as set out in the Decision at paragraphs 4, 5 and 6. The respondent raised this argument again in his submissions at the hearing.
9The applicant applied to the Tribunal for a determination of whether the respondent was involved in an “accident” as defined in s. 3(1) of the Schedule relating to the vehicle insured by it.3 There were only two parties to this application, the applicant and respondent. Only the parties to the application attended the hearing, put forward evidence and made submissions. The respondent did not seek to add any other party to the proceeding before the hearing.
10The preliminary issue to be determined by me at the hearing was framed in the Tribunal’s February 24, 2020 Order and confirmed in the Tribunal’s October 2, 2020 case conference report and Order. The Tribunal’s June 23, 2021 Order did not alter the issue and confirmed it by providing that, “except for the provisions contained in this Motion Order all previous orders made by the Tribunal remain in full force and effect.” The respondent consented to all of these Tribunal Orders.
11The respondent could have, but did not, bring a motion seeking to have the issue for the hearing re-framed prior to the commencement of the hearing.
12The issue before me, as ordered by the Tribunal was:
Was the respondent, K.R. involved in an “accident” as defined in the Schedule (s. 3(1)), relating to the vehicle insured by the applicant.
13Having reviewed the Decision, I find that I did not exceed the jurisdiction of the Tribunal by determining this issue, nor does my determination in the Decision constitute an error of law. The Tribunal has exclusive jurisdiction to determine all disputes involving entitlement to accident benefits under s. 280 of the Insurance Act.4
14In determining the issue before me at the hearing, there is no error of fact or law in the Decision. There is no basis upon which I could have, or should have, made a Decision affecting the rights and obligations of non-parties under other insurance policies or lack of insurance policies or the Schedule. The requirement to provide statutory accident benefits is policy-specific under s. 268(1) of the Insurance Act5 and the Schedule.
15After considering the submissions, evidence and case law put forward by both parties, I found that:
The respondent was not involved in an accident as defined in s. 3(1) of the Schedule relating to the vehicle insured by the applicant.
16My Decision determined the dispute between the two parties to this application and was before me, properly framed, in several Tribunal Orders consented to by the respondent. As set out in paragraph 6 of the Decision, the determination of issues between the applicant and/or respondent and/or other insurers who are not parties to this application was not before me and I confined my determination to the preliminary issue as outlined by the Tribunal’s Orders made with the consent of both parties.
17Having reviewed the Decision, I find that 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 respondent may disagree with the Decision, reconsideration is not an opportunity for the respondent to re-argue his position.
18After reviewing all of the evidence, I reached the conclusion in the Decision. This conclusion was within my mandate as an adjudicator and was exercised appropriately and fairly and for the reasons set out in paragraphs 16 to 31 of the Decision.
Although the respondent submits that I made significant error of law, such that a different conclusion would have been reached, this suggestion, again, is unfounded. In deciding this issue, I correctly considered and applied the applicable legislation.
19Dissatisfaction with the result is not a ground of reconsideration. Not accepting the respondent’s submissions, evidence or case law at the hearing is not an error of law.
20The respondent has not established his 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 respondent has requested reconsideration, the onus is on the respondent to establish his grounds and he has not done so. Instead, the respondent submissions amount to a re-argument of his case. A reconsideration is not an opportunity to reargue one’s case or an appeal.
CONCLUSION AND ORDER
21For the reasons noted above, I dismiss the respondent’s request for reconsideration of my Decision dated July 14, 2021.
Avril A. Farlam Vice Chair Tribunals Ontario – Licence Appeal Tribunal
Released: January 4, 2022
Footnotes
- Respondent’s Reason for Reconsideration para 3.
- Respondent’s Reason for Reconsideration, para 5.
- Responding Submissions of the Applicant, para 13.
- Insurance Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. I.8.
- Insurance Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. I.8.