Licence Appeal Tribunal
RECONSIDERATION DECISION
Before: Derek Grant
Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number: 20-000387/AABS
Case Name: Christian Edward v. Sonnet Insurance Company
Written Submissions by:
For the Applicant: Agal Lankeswaran, Paralegal
For the Respondent: Ashleigh Leon, Counsel
OVERVIEW
1This request for reconsideration was filed by C.E. It arises out of a decision dated October 6, 2021, in which I found that C.E. had failed to demonstrate that his accident-related impairments warranted removal from the Minor Injury Guideline (the “MIG”) or that the disputed treatment plans were reasonable and necessary.
2C.E. submits that it was an error of law and evidence to find that his pre-existing injuries and psychological impairments were insufficient enough to keep him within the MIG limit. He requests a reconsideration of the decision and a determination that his injuries are not subject to the MIG and that he is entitled to the disputed benefits.
RESULT
3C.E.’s request for reconsideration is dismissed.
BACKGROUND
4C.E. relies on the following three grounds for why he should be removed from the MIG:
a. He sustained a fracture to his knee;
b. He has a pre-existing knee condition which prevents his recovery under the MIG; and
c. He sustained psychological impairments as a result of the accident that warrant removal from the MIG.
5As the alleged fracture and pre-existing condition are both knee related, I will address those two issues together.
ANALYSIS
6The grounds for a request for reconsideration are set out in Rule 18.2 of the Tribunal’s Licence Appeal Tribunal, Animal Care Review Board, and Fire Safety Commission Common Rules of Practice and Procedure, Version 1 (October 2, 2017) (as amended) (“Common Rules”). C.E.’s request relies on the criteria set out in Rule 18.2(b): that I made an error of law or fact (wrongly worded in his submissions as “an error of fact and evidence”) such that the Tribunal would likely have reached a different result had the error not been made.
7The test for reconsideration under Rule 18.2(b) involves a significantly high threshold. It is well-settled that reconsideration is justifiable in cases where an adjudicator has made a significant legal or evidentiary error preventing a just outcome, where false evidence has been admitted, or where genuinely new and undiscoverable evidence comes to light at the conclusion of a hearing. The reconsideration process is not an opportunity for a party to ask the Tribunal to reweigh evidence or to re-argue its position where it disagrees with the decision or where it failed to satisfy its onus at first instance.
8I find that C.E.’s request for reconsideration fall under the premise of asking the Tribunal to reweigh evidence. His arguments on reconsideration fail to raise a clear error of law or fact (versus an error of evidence) that would have resulted in a different outcome had the error not been made. This is the basic requirement under Rule 18.2(b) for reconsideration.
No error of law or fact
Knee Fracture
9Despite his claims that he suffered a knee fracture, the evidence contradicts this claim. Specifically:
a. An ultrasound of the bilateral knees revealed a small joint perfusion, and possible bursitis, however, no fracture or full tears were noted;
b. C.E.’s own medical evidence shows that on December 21, 2017, Dr. Gorgzynski (fracture clinic) reported no bone injury, and further that Dr. Gorgzynski notes that he advised C.E. that there was no bone injury; and
c. C.E.’s most recent complaint of knee pain was April 18, 2018, to his family physician.
10As no fracture was noted, there was no ground to remove C.E. from the MIG on this basis. Further, there is no evidence that supports that C.E.’s pre-existing knee practically prevented him from achieving maximum medical recovery under the MIG.
11For these reasons, I find that no error of fact or law was made regarding C.E.’s knee injury or pre-existing condition.
Psychological Impairments
12At paragraphs 15-17, I set out my reasons and decision for finding that C.E. did not suffer from a diagnosed psychological impairment beyond any accident-related sequelae that warrants removal from the MIG. Specifically, I considered the evidence of the s. 25 assessor, Dr. Steiner and s. 44 assessor, Dr. Syed. Having considered the evidence of both reports, I note that I placed more weight on the s. 44 report of Dr. Syed. At paragraph 17, I conclude that Dr. Syed’s report “provides a clearer picture of C.E.’s psychological condition”, which did not establish that C.E. suffered psychological impairment as a result of the accident.
13C.E.’s reconsideration submissions do not provide any evidentiary supported argument that my consideration of the psychological evidence resulted in an alleged error of law or fact. The evidence from the parties was considered, weight was placed on the evidence I found to be persuasive, with reasons, satisfying the requirements of a trier of fact.
14Disagreeing with a finding that is within the reasonable possibilities of outcomes, is not a ground for reconsideration. Consequently, I am not persuaded that my consideration of his psychological well-being resulted in an error of law or fact.
15Having failed to satisfy the requirement set out under Rule 18.2(b), I find no basis to interfere with my decision.
CONCLUSION
16For the reasons noted above, the request for reconsideration is dismissed.
Derek Grant Adjudicator Tribunals Ontario – Licence Appeal Tribunal
Released: May 10, 2022