RECONSIDERATION DECISION
Before:
Tavlin Kaur
Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number:
22-011448/AABS
Case Name:
Roshan Said v. Northbridge Personal Insurance Corporation
Written Submissions by:
For the Applicant:
Adesina John, Paralegal
For the Respondent:
Jennifer McGlashan, Counsel
BACKGROUND
1This request for reconsideration was filed by the applicant in this matter. It arises out of two decisions. In the decision in Tribunal file #20-001503 (“the first decision”) dated October 15, 2021, the Tribunal determined that the applicant was not entitled to the income replacement benefit (“IRB”) and payment for an accounting report. In the decision in Tribunal file #22-011448 (“the second decision") dated August 1, 2023, the Tribunal determined that the applicant was barred from proceeding with a further application for IRBs because the doctrine of res judicata applied.
2In his request, the applicant alleges that the Tribunal made a significant error of law or fact, acted outside of its jurisdiction and violated the principles of procedural fairness. The respondent disagrees and requests that the reconsideration be dismissed.
RESULT
3The applicant's request for reconsideration is dismissed.
ANALYSIS
4The 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), as amended (“Rules”). A request for reconsideration will not be granted unless one or more of the criteria are met. For the purposes of this request, the applicant relies on the following grounds:
a) The Tribunal acted outside its jurisdiction or violated the rules of procedural fairness; and
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.
5Under Rule 18.2 the threshold for reconsideration is high. The reconsideration The reconsideration process is not an opportunity for a party to ask the Tribunal to reweigh or reconsider evidence, nor is it an opportunity for a party to re-litigate its position where it disagrees with the decision or where it failed to clearly meet its burden at first instance.
6I find that the applicant’s request for reconsideration does not establish grounds for reconsideration under Rule 18.2. I find he is attempting to re-argue his case. I reject his assertion that the Tribunal made an error of law or fact, acted outside its jurisdiction or violated the rules of procedural fairness.
Reconsideration of the first decision (October 15, 2021)
7The applicant is seeking a reconsideration of the first decision (20-001503/AABS). The Tribunal released this decision on October 15, 2021. Rule 18.1 provides that the Tribunal may reconsider any decision that finally disposes of an appeal if the request is made within 21 days of the date of the decision. The applicant acknowledges that he did not file a reconsideration request of the first decision within the timelines specified in the Rules. Furthermore, he did not appeal the first decision. He filed his request 96 weeks and 4 days after the 1st decision was released. In my view, the reconsideration of the first decision is not appropriately before the Tribunal as the applicant failed to abide by the timelines set out in the Rules. Therefore, I dismiss the applicant’s reconsideration as it relates to the first decision.
Reconsideration of the second decision (August 1, 2023)
Rule 18.2(a): Did the Tribunal act outside its jurisdiction or commit a material breach of procedural fairness?
8The applicant submits that I breached procedural fairness by infringing his right to be heard, by failing to give reasons for each pre-condition of res judicata and by failing to justify how res judicata was met. I disagree with the applicant’s assertion that I violated the rules of procedural fairness. I considered all of the applicant’s submissions and evidence. In paragraphs 11 to 16 of the decision, I provided a detailed explanation regarding why the four preconditions for res judicata were satisfied. The IRB was properly within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to consider. The applicant raised the IRB as an issue in dispute in the first decision. In fact, paragraph 4(i) of the first decision notes the issue in dispute as “Is the applicant entitled to IRBs of $400.00 per week from January 14, 2020 to date and ongoing?” Entitlement and quantum were properly before the Tribunal.
9The same issue was raised in the second application. However, there is an overlap between the time periods between the two applications. In paragraph 14 of the second decision, I addressed the timeframe of August 3, 2019 to date and ongoing. I provided reasons as to why the applicant would not be entitled to the IRB from August 3, 2019 to January 13, 2020. In my view, I could have expanded a bit more in my analysis in paragraph 14 by explaining that the two applications have the same time period in dispute (January 14, 2020 to date and ongoing) because the applicant did not elect earlier than January 14, 2020 because he was working. However, I do not find that this amounts to a breach of procedural fairness under Rule 18.2(a).
Rule 18.2(b): Error of law or fact
10The applicant submits that I made an error of law by failing to consider the S&T Accounting Reports, the Davis Martindale’s accounting reports, the OCF-1 and the respondent’s Explanation of Benefits. I considered all of the evidence presented by both parties in coming to my decision. The Tribunal is not required to refer to every piece of evidence when providing reasons for its decisions. Moreover, failing to cite every piece of evidence filed at a hearing in a decision does not equate to a significant error of law that would entitle a party to a reconsideration.
11The applicant has also not clearly articulated how the Tribunal would have reached a different result had the purported error not been made. In my view, the applicant is attempting to relitigate his case. It is not the role of the Tribunal to reweigh the evidence that was previously before an adjudicator in another application. If the applicant had taken issue with the first decision, the appropriate recourse would have been to file a reconsideration request or an appeal which outlined the alleged errors as noted in paragraph 11 of the decision. A subsequent application and a request for reconsideration of the decision in a subsequent application are not the appropriate venue for these types of arguments.
CONCLUSION
12For the reasons noted above, I dismiss the applicant's request for reconsideration.
Tavlin Kaur
Adjudicator
Tribunals Ontario – Licence Appeal Tribunal
Released: December 21, 2023