RECONSIDERATION DECISION
Before: Terry Prowse, Adjudicator
Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number: 21-000811/AABS
Case Name: Heba Abubaker Mohamed Hassan v. Aviva Insurance Company of Canada
Written Submissions by:
For the Applicant: Ivy So, Choose an item.
For the Respondent: Marcin Panasewicz, Counsel
BACKGROUND
1This request for reconsideration was filed by the applicant. It arises out of a decision dated January 20, 2023 (“decision”), in which I found that she was not entitled to attendant care benefits, an income replacement benefit, various medical/rehabilitation treatment plans, an award or costs.
2The applicant submitted that I acted outside of the Tribunal's jurisdiction or violated the rules of procedural fairness. She also submitted that I made an error of law or fact.
RESULT
3The applicant's request for reconsideration is dismissed.
ANALYSIS
4Under 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 (the “Rules”), the reconsideration of a Tribunal decision involves a high threshold, warranted when:
a. the Tribunal acts outside its jurisdiction or violates the rules of procedural fairness;
b. the Tribunal makes 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 would likely affect the result; or
d. there was evidence that was not before the Tribunal when rendering its decision, that could not have been obtained previously by the party now seeking to introduce it and would likely have affected the result.
5A reconsideration is not an opportunity for a party to ask the Tribunal to re-weigh the evidence or to reargue their case.
Rule 18.2(a) - The Tribunal did not act outside its jurisdiction or violate rules of procedural fairness
6The applicant indicated that I acted outside of my jurisdiction or violated the rules of procedural fairness. In her submission, she recalled my acceptance that she had pre-existing issues and suffered a fractured right knee in the accident. The applicant then referred to several exhibits that I accepted into evidence during the hearing and submissions that she made, albeit with no transcript for confirmation. She then repeated some of my findings, which she believed were in error. That was the extent of her submissions.
7The respondent submits that the reconsideration request should be dismissed outright, on the basis that the applicant provided no specifics of jurisdictional or procedural violations that she alleged were made. The respondent contends that the applicant’s reconsideration request is entirely without grounds and is an attempt by the applicant to reargue her case.
8Although the applicant initially indicated that the reconsideration request was under the grounds that I acted outside of the Tribunal’s jurisdiction or violated the rules of procedural fairness, she did not state where or how. Given the applicant’s reconsideration submissions, but lack of details tying them to an actual error on my part, it is clear to me that she is using the reconsideration mechanism as a means to reargue some of the arguments that she allegedly made during closing submissions. I find this reconsideration request shows the applicant’s dissatisfaction with my decision, her desire for me to change it and a re-submission of parts of the evidence packages and apparent arguments. In short, she attempted to reargue her case which, as stated, is not a basis for reconsideration.
9The applicant has not established grounds for reconsideration under Rule 18.2(a).
Rule 18.2 (b) - The Tribunal did not make an error in law or fact
10The applicant’s reconsideration arguments reflected her belief that the respondent was non-compliant with Section 36(4)(b) of the Schedule, because it did not provide sufficient medical reasons when denying the NEB, in a letter dated June 13, 2019. She claimed that I erred by not making that finding or addressing the issue.
11The respondent submits that no errors were made, again, noting that the applicant failed to specify what the error was. It submits that the applicant has adduced no evidence to confirm the arguments allegedly made at the hearing and this is an attempt to re litigate the issue rather than address any actual alleged errors. The respondent requests that I dismiss the reconsideration request.
12After considering the parties’ submissions, I conclude that the applicant has not established that I made an error of law or fact.
13The applicant is correct that I did not specifically deal with the issue of the respondent’s alleged non-compliance of Section 36 of the Schedule in my decision. Frankly, I do not recall being asked by her to include the issue in the decision itself and given my findings, likely would not have seen the necessity of doing so. I will also note that while adjudicators are required to provide sufficient reasons for how they arrived at a conclusion, they are not required to explain every nuance of their analyses.
14In any case, the applicant did not provide examples of where I stated or misinterpreted facts of the case in my decision. She also did not provide references to any specific laws that my analyses or conclusions breached. Again, her submissions reflect her dissatisfaction with my conclusions, an attempt to restate her arguments and relitigate the case. She has not established that I made errors in law or in fact.
15After carefully reviewing the parties’ submissions, I conclude that the applicant has failed to establish grounds for a reconsideration of the January 20, 2023 decision, under Rules 18.2(a) or 18.2(b). There is nothing in the applicant’s reconsideration submission that would change the result of my July 13, 2022 decision.
CONCLUSION
16For the reasons noted above, I dismiss the applicant’s request for reconsideration.
Terry Prowse
Adjudicator
Tribunals Ontario – Licence Appeal Tribunal
Released: August 3, 2023