RECONSIDERATION DECISION
Before: Terry Hunter, Vice Chair
Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number: 20-014935/AABS
Case Name: Delroy Mckenzie v. Intact Insurance Company
Written Submissions by:
For the Applicant: Joshua A Lindzon, Counsel
For the Respondent: Jonathan D. Wong
BACKGROUND
1The applicant requests reconsideration of a preliminary issue decision contained in an order released January 13, 2022, in which the Tribunal found the applicant had refused to attend Insurer’s Examinations under s. 44 of the Schedule. However, I found the Notices of Examination non-compliant with s. 44(5) and declined to grant a remedy pursuant to s. 55(1) of the Schedule. The hearing was adjourned to allow the respondent to schedule new notices of examination and provide proper notices of Insurer’s Examinations.
2The applicant’s request for reconsideration is made pursuant to Rule 18.2(a) and (b) as:
i. The Tribunal acted outside its jurisdiction and violated the rules of procedural fairness; and
ii. The Tribunal made gross errors of law and fact such that the Tribunal would absolutely have reached a different result had the errors not been made
3Intact Insurance submits that Rule 18 of the Licence Appeal Tribunal, Animal Care Review Board and Fire Safety Commission Common Rules of Practice and Procedure, Version (October 2, 2017) do not permit the applicant to seek reconsideration as the decision was an interlocutory order and not a final disposition of an appeal.
4The applicant also raises the issue that my decision raises a reasonable apprehension of bias.
RESULT
5The applicant’s request for reconsideration is dismissed. The decision appealed does not finally dispose of an appeal and, thus, does not satisfy the requirements of Rule 18.1.
ANALYSIS
6The grounds for a request for reconsideration to be allowed are contained in Rule 18 of the Tribunal’s Common Rules of Practice and Procedure. Rule 18.1 limits requests for a reconsideration to “any decision of the Tribunal that finally disposes of an appeal.”
7The courts have set out clear policy decisions dealing with appeals and applications for judicial review from Tribunal orders that are not finally dispositive of the issues before the Tribunal. The policy is set out in Taylor v. Aviva Canada Inc., 2018 ONSC 4472 where the court states:
“This court is reluctant to hear appeals from interim or interlocutory orders of administrative decision makers for the same reason that it is reluctant to hear judicial review proceedings before the administrative decision-making process has ended. Such appeals fragment the administrative proceeding and increase costs. Accordingly, courts have interpreted language that grants an appeal from a “decision or order” of a board or Tribunal as limited to an appeal of a final order.”
8The motion order does not make a final decision on the entire application or any of the individual issues in dispute. Paragraph [16] of the Motion Order adjourns the hearing and provides either party may bring a motion to set hearing dates once the IEs are completed.
9The applicant makes a number of allegations of bias.
CONCLUSION
10For the reasons noted above, I deny the Applicant's request for reconsideration.
11Either party may bring a motion to set a hearing date.
Terry Hunter Vice-Chair Tribunals Ontario – Licence Appeal Tribunal
Released: July 29, 2022