RECONSIDERATION DECISION
Before: Kate Grieves
Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number: 19-009136/AABS
Case Name: Dilshad Laljee v. Aviva Insurance Canada
Written Submissions by:
For the Applicant: Dilshad Laljee, Applicant
For the Respondent: Jason Frost, Counsel
OVERVIEW
1This request for reconsideration was filed by the applicant in this matter. It arises out of a July 31, 2023 decision (“decision”) in which I found that the applicant was not catastrophically impaired as a result of the accident, and that she was not entitled to medical and rehabilitation benefits in dispute.
2The grounds for a request for reconsideration to be allowed are contained in Rule 18 of the Licence Appeal Tribunal, Animal Care Review Board, and Fire Safety Commission Common Rules of Practice and Procedure, Version I, (October 2, 2017) as amended (“Rules”). A request for reconsideration will not be granted unless one or more of the following criteria are met:
a) The Tribunal acted outside its jurisdiction or violated the rules of procedural fairness;
b) 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;
c) The Tribunal heard false evidence from a party or witness, which was discovered only after the hearing and likely affected the result; or,
d) There is evidence that was not before the Tribunal when rendering its decision, could not have been obtained previously by the party now seeking to introduce it, and would likely have affected the result.
3Although the applicant does not specify in her submissions under which section of Rule 18.2 she is seeking a reconsideration, she checked Rule 18.2 (a), (b), and (d) on her reconsideration request form. In her submissions, the applicant disputes the contents of the evidence before the Tribunal and alleges the Tribunal therefore made incorrect findings of fact.
RESULT
4The applicant’s request for reconsideration is dismissed.
PROCEDURAL ISSUES
5The applicant’s reply submissions exceeded the page length set out in the Tribunal’s request for submissions letter and were filed late. The respondent advised that it did not object to the Tribunal considering the reply submissions. The applicant provided a second set of reply submissions 6 pages long. I have considered all of the submissions in my analysis.
ANALYSIS
6The test for reconsideration under Rule 18.2 involves a high threshold. The reconsideration process is not an opportunity for a party to re-litigate its position where it disagrees with the Tribunal’s decision, or with the weight assigned to the evidence. The requestor must show how or why the decision falls into one of the categories in Rule 18.2.
Violation of Procedural Fairness
7The applicant submits that the respondent refused to provide her with a copy of the Examination Under Oath (“EUO”) transcript, which prevented her from having a fair hearing. The respondent submits that the EUO transcript was provided to the applicant and her former counsel on multiple occasions in the years prior to the hearing via email, Dropbox, and by courier on a USB. In any event, there are Certificates of Service on file with the Tribunal confirming the full accident benefits file (including the EUO transcript) and the complete document brief of the respondent were served on the applicant in advance of the hearing, on April 6, 2022 and September 12, 2022, respectively. The EUO transcript can be found at Tab 77 of the respondent’s document brief, page 1010. The applicant referred to the respondent’s document brief several times in her submissions, so it appears she has it in her possession. I therefore find no merit to the applicant’s submission.
8The applicant submits that she did not receive a fair hearing because the clinical notes and records that she produced from her family doctors were, in her view, illegible. Dr. Tulk’s clinical notes and records are largely electronic. They are typed and totally legible. Dr. Tulk also provided a typed affidavit dated September 7, 2026 which described his observations of the applicant during the material times. Dr. Saul’s clinical notes and records are handwritten, and while difficult to decipher in some parts, were sufficiently legible such that I was able to summarize their contents in the decision. Further, the applicant could have requested that a transcribed copy of the notes from her doctors be provided if she felt they were illegible. I find that there was no breach of procedural fairness in relying on the notes of the family doctors.
Errors of Fact
9The applicant disputes the description of the accident in the decision and submits that there was no collision report in evidence to support a finding that the third-party vehicle was travelling around 5km/hr. The self-reporting collision report completed by the third-party is located at Tab 80 (pg. 1143) of the respondent’s document brief. It confirms the approximate speed of the third party and a description of the accident. Photographs of the third-party vehicle were included at Tab 92 (pg. 1965) of the respondent’s document brief showing minimal damage. There are no photos of the applicant’s vehicle, nor a collision report from the applicant as she confirmed that she did not report the accident. I find that there was no error of fact in my description of the accident, it was based on the evidence before me.
10The applicant submits that I made an error of fact in finding that the applicant had a prior conviction for criminal harassment in 2004 in Lindsay, Ontario, or that she was convicted of a criminal offence just before the car accident in 2009. I did not make such findings. I accurately summarized the voluminous evidence, including the 2005 court decision convicting her of criminal harassment for making harassing phone calls (see R. v. Laljee, [2005] O.J. No. 4602 and the related Court of Appeal decision reported at 2007 CarswellOnt 7181) which were included in the document brief at Tabs 169 and 170. There were references to the conviction in the medical records. I addressed it in my decision in the context of noting the applicant’s long-standing psychiatric history including schizoaffective and paranoid personality disorders that were affecting her behaviour prior to the accident. I did not make an error of fact.
11The applicant questions the motive for referring in my decision to an incident which occurred many years prior in 1996. The information came from a letter of Dr. Williams dated October 21, 1996, which referred to an incident in September 1996, following which she was hospitalized. At paragraph 21 of the decision, I provided a summary of the longstanding nature of the applicant’s psychological history. The reason it was referred to is because the cause of the applicant’s psychological issues was in dispute. The applicant’s position is that the motor vehicle accident caused her to suffer a catastrophic psychological impairment. I found that the evidence before me, dating back many years, demonstrated that the applicant’s psychological impairments were actually longstanding, and pre-dated the accident.
12The applicant disagrees with the characterization of her social situation prior to the accident – that she was never homeless, the reason she left her condo, and the status of relationships with family and friends. With respect, the evidence does not support grounds for reconsideration. There are multiple reports that refer to her lack of support, poor relationships with family, not having friends and being socially isolated prior to the accident. The evidence, including receipts, show that the applicant did not have a stable home in the year prior to the accident, as she was living in motels. It is not disputed that the applicant has since settled into an apartment for several years, but it has no bearing on this request for reconsideration. The decision was a determination of whether the applicant met the threshold for catastrophic impairment as a result of accident-related injuries, and I found that she did not.
13The applicant reiterates the conclusions of Dr. Pflug and Dr. Gnam that she met the threshold for catastrophic impairment. Reconsideration is not an opportunity to re-argue her case or for me to re-weigh the evidence. I carefully considered the evidence, including the conclusions of Dr. Pflug and Dr. Gnam, but in light of all of the evidence before me, was not persuaded that the applicant sustained a catastrophic impairment as a result of the accident.
14The applicant also submits that a letter dated January 13, 1999 from the principal of the high school where she formerly taught indicates that she was recommended for a promotion and she did not leave her employment due to ill health. This is not new evidence. The letter was already before the Tribunal (page 33 of the applicant’s original exhibits). As noted above, reconsideration is not an opportunity to re-argue the case or for me to re-weigh the evidence. I considered all of the evidence, including the January 13, 1999 letter, the entire employment file from the school board, the complete LTD file, CPP file, ODSP file, and the medical records, which indicate that the applicant was unable to continue working as a result of her physical and psychological problems.
15In light of the foregoing, I find that the applicant has not established any grounds for reconsideration pursuant to Rule 18.2.
ORDER
16The applicant’s request for reconsideration is dismissed.
Kate Grieves
Adjudicator
Tribunals Ontario – Licence Appeal Tribunal
Released: November 16, 2023
