RECONSIDERATION DECISION
Before: Adjudicator Tavlin Kaur
Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number: 21-010989/AABS
Case Name: Sinnicks v. Northbridge General Insurance Company
Written Submissions by:
For the Applicant: Gordon Harris, Counsel
For the Respondent: Amanda Lennox, Counsel
BACKGROUND
1This request for reconsideration was filed by the applicant in this matter.
2It arises out of a preliminary issue decision dated November 18, 2022 (“decision”) in which the Tribunal found that the applicant was not involved in an accident. In her request, the applicant alleges that the Tribunal made a significant error of law and fact. 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 ground:
a) 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 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 she is attempting to re-argue her case and reject her assertion that the Tribunal made a significant error of law and fact.
Rule 18.2(b): Error of law or fact
7The applicant submitted that the Tribunal made a significant error of fact or law by failing to properly apply the causation test as set out in Chisholm v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Group and Greenhalgh v. ING-Halifax Insurance Co. It is alleged that the Tribunal failed to consider the applicant’s evidence and apply all the relevant jurisprudence before it. Moreover, it is asserted that the Tribunal failed to thoroughly analyze and apply the “but for” test, as well as the test’s sub-considerations established by the jurisprudence cited in the applicant’s submissions. It is the applicant’s position the Tribunal erred in finding that causation was not established.
8The respondent submitted that the applicant has not established that there was an error of law, or that the alleged error(s) were of a significance that this Tribunal would have likely reached a different decision. Therefore, the request for reconsideration should be denied.
ANALYSIS
9The applicant claims that my conclusion was hastily made without sufficient analysis and only brief reasons were provided. She states that “while intervening acts and direct cause were appropriately considered, they were not appropriately applied to the factual situation.” I disagree. I provided extensive and coherent reasons as to why I was not persuaded by the applicant’s position. Paragraphs 9-46 of my decision clearly set out my analysis and reasons for not finding in the applicant’s favour.
10In her reconsideration submissions, the applicant argues that the Tribunal applied the “but for” test with an overly broad scope and only gave consideration to the mainstream jurisprudence. It is her view that the Tribunal failed to consider other jurisprudence that has confirmed that a large and liberal interpretation must be given to the term “accident” and in applying the causation analysis.
11I disagree. I find that while I considered other decisions from the Tribunal, I am not bound to follow them, and did not find them to be persuasive. I am, however, bound by the decisions in Chisholm, Greenhalgh and Porter. Chisholm and Greenhalgh were decided by the Ontario Court of Appeal. Porter was decided by Superior Court of Justice-Divisional Court (Ontario). As noted in the decision, I found the Porter decision as it was directly applicable to this particular set of facts. The applicant did not explain in her reconsideration submissions why the Tribunal should have departed from the reasoning of the Divisional Court in Porter. To disregard this decision would have been an error of law.
12Moreover, I am also bound by Sajid v. Certas, 2022 ONSC 2071, which was referred to by the Respondent in the reconsideration submissions. The Divisional Court found that a “broad and liberal interpretation” cannot effectively broaden the definition of “accident” to include indirect causes, as was the case prior to the amendment of s.3(1) of the Schedule which narrowed the definition of “accident” to direct causes. I agree with the Divisional Court and find no reason to depart from this reasoning.
13Furthermore, I am not persuaded by the case law that the applicant has submitted in support of her reconsideration request, and find the applicant is attempting to re-argue her case. As noted above, I am not bound by cases decided by other adjudicators. The case law that has been submitted by the applicant is also distinguishable from facts in this case. For example, in Fehr v Intact Ins. Co., 2022 CanLII 14951 (ON LAT), the Tribunal found that slipping on ice while walking to a rideshare vehicle is clearly distinguishable from hanging and falling from the roof of a transport truck after a ladder slides out while performing routine maintenance.
14I also find there was no error made by the Tribunal in its application of the correct legal test for causation, which was addressed in paragraphs 36 to 46 of the decision.
15I applied that test to the facts before me. The onus is on the applicant to establish her grounds and she has not done so. Dissatisfaction with the result is not a ground of reconsideration. Not accepting the applicant’s submissions, evidence or case law at the hearing is not an error of law. Although the applicant may disagree with the Decision, reconsideration is not an opportunity for the applicant to re-argue her position, which is what I find to be the case here.
CONCLUSION
16For the reasons noted above, the applicant’s request for reconsideration is dismissed.
Tavlin Kaur
Adjudicator
Tribunals Ontario – Licence Appeal Tribunal
Released: April 19, 2023