Licence Appeal Tribunal
RECONSIDERATION DECISION
Before: Ulana Pahuta
Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number: 21-011288/AABS
Case Name: Harwinder Dhaliwal v. Belair Insurance Company Inc.
Written Submissions by:
For the Applicant: Jeton Memeti, Paralegal
For the Respondent: Zachary Berg, Counsel
OVERVIEW
1On October 17, 2023, the applicant requested reconsideration of the Tribunal’s decision dated September 26, 2023 (“decision”). In that decision, I determined that the applicant’s accident-related impairments fit within the Minor Injury Guideline (“MIG”). As a result, I found that he was not entitled to the disputed treatment plans, interest or an award.
2The grounds for a request for reconsideration are found in Rule 18.2 of the Licence Appeal Tribunal Rules, 2023 (“Rules”). To grant a request for reconsideration, the Tribunal must be satisfied that one or more of the following criteria are met:
a) The Tribunal acted outside its jurisdiction or committed a material breach 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; or
c) 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.
3The applicant is seeking reconsideration pursuant to Rule 18.2(b). He submits that I made an error of law or fact such that I would have reached a different result in my decision if the errors had not been made.
4The applicant seeks an order to vary the decision and find in his favour on all of the issues in dispute. In the alternative, he seeks an order to set aside my decision and that a new hearing be ordered to proceed with a different adjudicator.
5The respondent submits that the applicant’s request for reconsideration is an attempt to relitigate his case.
RESULT
6The applicant’s reconsideration request is dismissed.
ANALYSIS
7The 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.
Rule 18.2(b) Errors of Fact and Law
8I find that the applicant has not established grounds for reconsideration under Rule 18.2(b). The applicant submits that I erred in law and fact by:
i. Incorrectly stating that the applicant’s initial submissions did not specify on which grounds he sought removal from the MIG;
ii. Failing to properly consider MRI results noting a disc protrusion;
iii. Failing to properly interpret the clinical notes and records (“CNRs”) of the applicant’s physician, Dr. Cheema;
iv. Failing to properly consider Dr. Ogilvie-Harris’ qualifications, report and his “Medicolegal Research Brief”;
v. Failing to find that the applicant suffered from chronic pain.
9The applicant submits that I erred in stating that his submissions did not specify the grounds for removal from the MIG. He references paragraphs from his initial submissions which he submits “contain the medical evidence that the applicant suffers from chronic pain”.
10I find that there was no error. The applicant’s initial hearing submissions did not expressly state on which ground he sought removal from the MIG. I find no error in my characterization of his submissions. The applicant did however refer to medical evidence in support of a claim for removal on the grounds of chronic pain and physical impairment. Both of these grounds were considered in paragraphs 7-10 and 12-20 of my decision. As such, I fully considered whether the applicant should be removed from the MIG on the basis of a non-minor physical impairment or chronic pain.
11The applicant further submits that I failed to properly consider and interpret MRI results noting a disc protrusion and the CNRs of Dr. Cheema. The applicant submits that the MRI results clearly indicate that he sustained an impairment warranting removal from the MIG. The applicant further submits that I incorrectly interpreted Dr. Cheema’s assessment of the MRI.
12I find that there was no error. At paragraphs 7 to 11 of my decision, I considered the MRI and Dr. Cheema’s CNRs and provided my reasons as to why the applicant did not provide sufficient evidence of a non-minor impairment. The fact that the applicant does not agree with my analysis or decision is not grounds for reconsideration. The reconsideration process is not meant to be a reweighing of the evidence presented at first instance. I find that the applicant’s reconsideration submissions on this point are an attempt to reargue his case.
13Finally, the applicant submits that I failed to adequately assess the qualifications of Dr. Ogilvie-Harris and consider his Medicolegal Research Brief (“brief”). He argues that had I properly considered Dr. Ogilvy-Harris’ qualifications, brief, testing and report, I would have found that the applicant had suffered from chronic pain warranting removal from the MIG.
14I find no error. I discussed Dr. Ogilvie-Harris’ report in paragraphs 13, 14 and 19 of my decision. Although I did not specifically reference Dr. Ogilvie-Harris’ qualifications or his brief in my decision, it is well-settled that an adjudicator is not required to refer to every piece of evidence when reaching a determination on the issues in dispute. In rendering my decision, I considered all of the evidence presented, including Dr. Ogilvie-Harris’ qualifications, testing and the brief.
15In my decision, I did not raise any question as to Dr. Ogilvie-Harris’ qualifications. Nor did I fail to consider the brief. Rather, as noted in paragraphs 13, 14 and 19 of my decision, I provided reasons as to why I preferred the evidence presented by the respondent. I find that the applicant is re-litigating his position which already failed at the hearing. Further, he is asking me to reweigh the same evidence that I already considered when rendering my decision in order to render an alternate finding. That is not the purpose of the reconsideration process. The applicant has not demonstrated that I erred in fact or law such that I would have reached a different result in my decision if the errors had not been made.
CONCLUSION
16The applicant’s request for reconsideration is dismissed.
Ulana Pahuta Adjudicator Tribunals Ontario – Licence Appeal Tribunal
Released: December 22, 2023