Reconsideration Decision
Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number: 21-003298/AABS
Case Name: Ravinderraj Khan v. Aviva Insurance Company of Canada
Before: Chloe Lester, Vice-Chair
Written Submissions by:
For the Applicant: Tal Eshel, Counsel
For the Respondent: Kevin Griffiths, Counsel
OVERVIEW
1This request for reconsideration was filed by the applicant in this matter. It arises out of a Tribunal decision dated February 3, 2023, in which I found that the applicant was not entitled to any benefits or a designation that he was catastrophically impaired.
2The applicant is seeking:
a. A reconsideration of my decision.
b. A review of case law and the Schedule according to the date of loss.
c. A reversal of the decision and reasoning, including case law, indicating the reasons for the applicant’s denials.
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 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. A request for reconsideration will not be granted unless one or more of the criteria in Rule 18.2 are met:
18.2 CRITERIA FOR GRANTING RECONSIDERATION
The Tribunal shall not make an order under 18.4(b) unless satisfied that 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.
5The applicant makes his request pursuant to Rule 18.2 (b). He submits that I made an error of law or fact that, had it not been committed, would have led to a different result. The applicant argues that since his accident took place on February 21, 2015, the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule – Effective September 1, 2010 (the “Schedule”) version of the Schedule applies to him. As such, he argues that he is entitled to apply for certain medical, rehabilitation and attendant care benefits. He argues that if in the future he is determined to be catastrophically impaired, then he still has a right to claim attendant care benefits under the previous version of the Schedule. He also argues that if in the future he is not deemed catastrophically impaired, he should be allowed to pursue benefits available to him even if he applies for them outside the timelines provided for in the Schedule. The applicant argues that the time limitations are subject to the rules of discoverability. The applicant relies on Tomec v. Economical Mutual Insurance Company, 2019 ONCA 882.
6The respondent argues that the applicant has not referred to any specific error in my decision. The respondent argues that the basis for the applicant’s request for reconsideration is to ensure that if at some point in the future, the applicant wants to argue he is catastrophically impaired, he has a right to claim $36,000 in attendant care benefits. The respondent argues the reconsideration process is not an opportunity to address future claims.
7I agree with the respondent and find that the applicant has not pointed me to any error of law or fact that would alter the result of my decision. My decision does not deal with or inhibit the applicant from applying for future benefits or future designations. Nor does it prevent him from arguing the rule of discoverability. For a reconsideration to be granted, the applicant must point to a specific error of law or fact that would affect the result of the original decision. In this case, none have been identified and I order the reconsideration be dismissed.
CONCLUSION
8The applicant’s request for reconsideration is dismissed.
Chloe Lester Vice-Chair
Released: April 20, 2023