RECONSIDERATION DECISION
Before:
Avril A. Farlam, Vice-Chair
01/04/2022
Tribunal File Number:
20-005924/AABS
Case Name:
Josee Munu Munu v. Aviva General Insurance
Written Submissions by:
For the Applicant:
Alexei Antonov, Counsel and Francesco Vumbaca, Student-at-Law
For the Respondent:
Brenden W. Carruthers, Counsel
OVERVIEW
1This request for reconsideration was filed by Josee Munu Munu (“applicant”).
2It arises out of a June 8, 2021 decision (“Decision”) in which I found the applicant is not entitled to non-earner benefits (“NEB”) because she failed to submit a completed OCF-3, disability certificate, pursuant to the Ontario Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule – Effective September 1, 2010 (“Schedule”), not entitled to $200.00 for a psychological pre-screening assessment, interest, costs or a special award under s. 10 of Regulation 664.
3The applicant asks that the Decision be set aside and an Order be made varying the Decision or alternatively, an Order for a new hearing.
4The respondent requests that the request for reconsideration be dismissed because she filed her request for reconsideration late, without requesting leave or offering any explanation for her late filing, and because the applicant has failed to identify any error, let alone that would have affected the result of the hearing is improperly asking that evidence be re-weighed.
RESULT
5The applicant’s request for reconsideration is dismissed.
ANALYSIS
6Although the applicant’s request for reconsideration was filed late, it was approved by the Tribunal to proceed. Therefore, I will consider it.
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 that I violated the rules of procedural fairness by failing to follow authorities cited by the applicant, made errors of fact and law by incorrectly interpreting s. 36 of the Schedule and allegedly ignoring the consumer protection purpose of the governing legislation and made errors in weighing the applicant’s medical and other evidence.
9Having reviewed the Decision, I find that I did not violate the rules of procedural fairness or make any errors of fact and law by failing to follow Tribunal and FSCO decisions cited by the applicant. None of these decisions are binding on me and, after consideration of all of the case law submitted by the applicant, I found them unhelpful as set out in paragraph 21 of the Decision. Contrary to the applicant’s submissions, stare decisis does not require a tribunal to follow its own decisions which are, at most, persuasive. 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 or the reasons for finding them to be unhelpful. Not following non-binding decisions that the applicant submits supports her position is not an error or violation of procedural fairness.
10Having reviewed the Decision, I find that I did not err in my interpretation of s. 36 of the Schedule. After considering the submissions, evidence and case law put forward by both parties, I found that the applicant was not entitled to the benefits claimed for the reasons given in the Decision. The applicable law and legislative analysis are set out in paragraphs 8 to 13, and 15 to 21 of the Decision.
11Further, 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.
12The consumer protection purpose of the governing legislation was not ignored by me and is specifically referenced in paragraph 21 of the Decision.
13Having reviewed the Decision for other errors of law or fact, I find that I did not make any errors of law or fact regarding the weighing of the applicant’s evidence, including any errors of law or fact such that I would likely have reached a different result had the error not been made. After weighing the applicant’s 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 21, and 24 to 28, and 39 and 40 of the Decision.
14Although the applicant 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.
15Dissatisfaction 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.
16Interest is not payable if benefits are not found payable. There is no error in the Decision regarding interest.
17Costs were not awarded to the applicant for the reasons given in paragraphs 45 to 47 of the Decision. There is no error in refusing to award costs on the evidence before me.
18A special award under s. 10 of Regulation 664 can be made where there is a finding that an insurer unreasonably withheld or delayed the payment of benefits. There was no error in finding that there was no basis for an award.
19The 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 amount to a re-argument of her case. A reconsideration is not an opportunity to reargue one’s case or an appeal.
CONCLUSION AND ORDER
20For the reasons noted above, I dismiss the applicant’s request for reconsideration of my Decision dated June 8, 2021.
Avril A. Farlam
Vice Chair
Tribunals Ontario – Licence Appeal Tribunal
Released: January 4, 2022