RECONSIDERATION DECISION
Before: Terry Hunter, Vice Chair
Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number: 20-014299/AABS
Case Name: Marie Laurence v. Security National Insurance Company
Written Submissions by:
For the Applicant: Joshua A Lindzon, Counsel
For the Respondent: Symone Marlowe, Counsel
BACKGROUND
1The applicant requests reconsideration of a preliminary issue decision contained in an order released March 16, 2022 in which the Tribunal found the applicant had refused to attend insurer’s examinations under section 44 of the Schedule. I found the Notices of Examination were compliant with section 44(5) and stayed the proceeding pursuant to section 55(2) of the Schedule. The Motion Order provided that all matters will proceed to a hearing if the applicant attends the respondent’s examinations.
2The applicant’s request for reconsideration is made pursuant to Rule 18 of the Tribunal’s Common Rules of practice and Procedure as follows:
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.
3The respondent requests reconsideration of a preliminary issue decision released March 16, 2022. The Tribunal did not barr the applicant’s application for non-earner benefits despite finding the Notices of Examination were not deficient and the IEs reasonable. The respondent submits that the order staying the application until the applicant attends IEs is a breach of procedural fairness against the respondent.
4The respondent’s request for reconsideration is made pursuant to Rule 18.2 (b) of the Tribunal’s Common Rules of practice and Procedure as follows:
i. The Tribunal made a significant error of law such that the Tribunal would likely have reached a different decision as the Tribunal did not make a final decision barring the applicant’s application for non-earner benefits.
RESULT
5Both the applicant’s and respondent’s requests for a reconsideration are dismissed. Rule 18 does not permit the parties to seek reconsideration as the decision was an interlocutory order and not a final disposition of an appeal.
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 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 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.
9The applicant and respondent have both conceded the Motion order of Vice Chair Hunter is an interim decision.
10In paragraph 28 of the Applicant’s Response Submissions of the Respondent’s Reconsideration, dated May 5, 2022 states; “given the fact that the applicant will be attending the IEs, a stay of proceedings was appropriate.” Paragraph 29 provides; “the Applicant submits that Vice Chair Hunter did not err in law by allowing the Applicant to proceed with her application for NEBs, once she attends the IEs.”
11The respondent in their April 6, 2022, Reconsideration Request at paragraph 3 submits; “The respondent is aware that reconsiderations are for final decisions; however, in this case, the Respondent submits that a final decision should have been made with respect to the preliminary issue.” Clearly, the respondent concedes the motion was an interlocutory decision.
12The motion order does not make a final decision on the entire application or any of the individual issues in dispute. Paragraph [4] of the Motion Order provides; “The application is stayed pending the applicant’s attendance for the respondent’s IEs. If the applicant attends, all issues will proceed to the substantive hearing.”
13The Motion Order provides either party can bring a motion to set a hearing date.
CONCLUSION
14For the reasons noted above, I deny the applicant’s and respondent's request for a reconsideration of a Motion Order dated March 16, 2022.
Terry Hunter
Vice-Chair
Tribunals Ontario – Licence Appeal Tribunal
Released: August 26, 2022