RECONSIDERATION DECISION
Before: Lindsay Lake, Vice-Chair
Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number: 20-014495/AABS
Case Name: C.S. v. Travelers Insurance
Written Submissions by:
For the Applicant: Brent Meadows, Counsel
For the Respondent: Linda Matthews, Counsel Saro Setrakian, Counsel
BACKGROUND
1The applicant, C.S., filed a request for reconsideration of a decision dated February 17, 2023 (C.S. v. Travelers Insurance, 2023 CanLII 12976 (ON LAT)) of the Licence Appeal Tribunal – Automobile Accident Benefit Services (Tribunal).
2In the decision, I found, among other things, that the applicant failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that she sustained a catastrophic impairment as a result of the accident.
3The applicant requested a reconsideration of the decision and submitted that I made an error of fact such that I would likely have reached a different result had the error not been made.
4The respondent’s position is that the request for reconsideration should be denied.
RESULT
5The applicant's request for reconsideration is dismissed.
ANALYSIS
6The grounds upon which a request for reconsideration can be granted are set out in Rule 18.2 of the Licence Appeal Tribunal, Animal Care Review Board, and Fire Safety Commission’s Common Rules of Practice and Procedure, Version I (October 2, 2017) as amended.
7The ground that applies in this matter is set out under Rule 18.2(b), as the applicant submitted that I made an error of fact such that I would likely have reached a different result had the error not been made. Specifically, the applicant submitted that I erred by stating that the respondent’s position was that the applicant’s psychological impairments were pre-existing and not caused by the accident. The applicant submitted that this was an error because the respondent conceded that some of the applicant’s impairments were caused by the accident.
8In her reconsideration submissions, the applicant also relied upon certain portions of the evidence from Dr. Kehinde Aladetoyinbo, psychiatrist, in support of her position that she sustained certain diagnoses and impairments as a direct result of the accident.
9Even if I agreed with the applicant’s reconsideration submissions that an error of fact was made, it would not change the outcome of the decision. I agree with the respondent’s submission that the decision was based solely on the applicant’s level of function not being a class 4 “marked” impairment under the Adaptation domain and causation was not considered. My reason for not considering the issue of causation is clearly set out in paragraph [43] of the decision as follows:
Although the respondent raised the issue of causation regarding the applicant’s psychological impairments, I do not need to decide on this issue as I have found that the applicant has failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that she suffered a catastrophic impairment as a result of the accident.
10For all these reasons, I find that even if an error had been made regarding the respondent’s position on causation as suggested by the applicant, a reconsideration is not warranted in this matter because the outcome of the decision would not change.
CONCLUSION
11The applicant’s request for reconsideration is dismissed.
Lindsay Lake Vice-Chair Tribunals Ontario – Licence Appeal Tribunal
Released: May 10, 2023