21-000433/AABS - R
RECONSIDERATION DECISION
Before: E. Louise Logan
Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number: 21-000433/AABS
Case Name: Cinzia Costa v. Co-operators General Insurance Company
Written Submissions by:
For the Applicant: Jeton Memeti, Paralegal
For the Respondent: Emily Schatzker, Counsel
BACKGROUND
1On April 3 and 7, 2023, the applicant requested a reconsideration of the Tribunal’s decision dated March 17, 2023 (“decision”). In the decision, the Tribunal dismissed the application and found the applicant’s injuries are predominantly minor and therefore subject to treatment within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG). The Tribunal also found that the applicant is not entitled to the treatment plans in dispute, interest, or an award under section 10 of Reg 664.
2The grounds for a request for reconsideration 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”). To grant a reconsideration request, the Tribunal must be 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.
3Reconsideration involves a high threshold. The requestor must show how or why the decision falls into one of the categories in Rule 18.2.
4The applicant is seeking a reconsideration pursuant to Rule 18.2(b). The applicant requests that the decision be set aside, and that the Tribunal order that the applicant is removed from the MIG, and is entitled to the treatment plans in dispute, and interest, or alternatively, that the Tribunal order a new hearing with a different adjudicator. The respondent requests that the applicant’s request for reconsideration be dismissed.
RESULT
5The applicant's request for reconsideration is dismissed.
ANALYSIS
6In her request for reconsideration the applicant argues that the Tribunal erred in law and fact by not considering the applicant’s evidence. In her submissions, the applicant refers to the evidence she submitted to the Tribunal as credible, unreliable and uncontradicted. She does not specify the errors made by the Tribunal in the decision, nor how the Tribunal would likely have reached a different result had the errors not been made.
7Rule 18.1 provides that a request for reconsideration must be submitted on the form on the Tribunal’s website and must include all submissions in support of the request. The applicant filed her reconsideration submissions on April 3, 2023 and filed her request for reconsideration form with the Tribunal on April 7, 2023. Despite Rule 18.1, the applicant’s initial submissions did not provide detailed arguments in support of her reconsideration request. Instead, on reply, the applicant supplemented her initial submissions with new arguments about the nature of the alleged errors made by the Tribunal.
8The respondent argues that the applicant’s reply submissions are improper and deprive the respondent of the opportunity to provide a more particularized response. It requests that the applicant’s reply be removed from the reconsideration file.
9I agree with the respondent that the applicant’s submissions on reply include new arguments not included in the submissions accompanying her request for reconsideration. As such, I find the applicant’s reply submissions are improper and I will not consider them.
10I find the applicant has not established grounds for reconsideration pursuant to Rule 18.2(b). She has not identified specific errors of fact or law in the decision, nor has she indicated how such errors would likely have affected the outcome of the decision.
CONCLUSION
11For the reasons noted above, I deny the applicant’s request for reconsideration. The applicant’s request for reconsideration is dismissed.
E. Louise Logan Vice-Chair Tribunals Ontario – Licence Appeal Tribunal
Released: June 19, 2023