RECONSIDERATION DECISION
Before: Avril A. Farlam, Vice Chair
Tribunal File Number: 20-006962/AABS
Case Name: David Oram v. Aviva General Insurance
Written Submissions by:
For the Applicant: Nick de Koning, Counsel
For the Respondent: Savneet Multani and Bhavpreet Saini, Counsel
OVERVIEW
1This request for reconsideration was filed by David Oram ("applicant").
2It arises out of a January 26, 2022 decision ("Decision") in which I found that the applicant's injuries did not result from an "accident" as defined in s. 3(1) of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule – Effective September 1, 2010 ("Schedule").
3The applicant submits that the Tribunal made significant errors of law (and/or mixed fact and law) such that it is likely that the Tribunal would have, and should have, reached a different result had the errors not been made.
4The respondent submits that the applicant has failed to demonstrate any reversible errors in the Decision and the request for reconsideration must be denied.
RESULT
5The applicant'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 Licence Appeal Tribunal, Animal Care Review Board, and Fire Safety Commission Common Rules of Practice and Procedure, Version I (October 2, 2017) amended February 7, 2019 (the "Rules"). The applicant makes this request under Rule 18.2 (b) which is that the I made an error of law or fact such that I would likely have reached a different result had the error not been made.
7In summary, the applicant submits that while I correctly referenced the leading Court of Appeal decisions, I did not correctly apply these to the factual situation in this proceeding. The applicant also submits that I gave very brief reasons. The applicant also submits that I gave insufficient consideration to whether a fall on ice or snow in Canadian winter could be considered a normal risk or normal incident of use or operation. The appellant submits that falling on ice at the exterior of one's vehicle in the winter is not unheard of, novel, or out of the ordinary course of things, nor is falling once, provided use and operation continues, such a dominant characteristic of an incident that it results in a finding that the incident is not an accident. The appellant also submits that "numerous decisions" have found that such an incident is indeed in the normal course of things and neither an intervening event nor the dominant feature.
8As a result, the applicant submits that I erred in failing to find that both the purpose and causation tests were made out on the facts of this case and in concluding that the incident was not an "accident" under the definition in s. 3(1) of the Schedule accident".
9The applicant made substantially these same arguments at the hearing and they were found lacking given the facts of this particular case as set out in paragraphs 13 through 17, 23 through 26 and 32 through 34 of the Decision. I have reconsidered them given that I am not required to show deference to the original decision nor to the original adjudicator's factual findings1 and have found no error of law or fact such that I would likely have reached a different result had the error not been made.
10After reviewing all of the evidence, submissions and legal authorities of both parties made at the hearing I reached the conclusion in the Decision for the reasons given. The reasons were not "very brief" but rather succinct and comprised eight pages. The conclusion reached was within my mandate as an adjudicator and was exercised appropriately and fairly and for the reasons set out in the Decision.
11Although 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 the evidence and based on the facts as I found them, applied the correct legal analysis to reach the conclusion stated in the decision. An adjudicator is not required in a decision to refer to every piece of evidence, every submission or every legal authority put forward at the hearing. Contrary to the suggestion of the applicant, the case law cited by the applicant was considered and found not to be persuasive as set out in paragraphs 23, 26, 27, 28 and 34 of the Decision.
12Dissatisfaction 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.
13The applicant 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 applicant has requested reconsideration, the onus is on the applicant to establish his grounds and he has not done so. The applicant's submissions amount to a re-argument of his case. A reconsideration is not an opportunity to relitigate the issues in dispute.2
CONCLUSION AND ORDER
14For the reasons noted above, I dismiss the applicant's request for reconsideration of my Decision.
Avril A. Farlam
Vice-Chair
Tribunals Ontario – Licence Appeal Tribunal
Released: May 12, 2022
Footnotes
- Fratarcangeli v. North Blenheim Mutual Insurance Company, 2021 ONSC 3997 at para 80 (Div.Ct.).
- R.K.K. v. Cooperators General Insurance Co., 2021 CanLII 18934 at para. 6 (ON LAT).