RECONSIDERATION DECISION
Before: Tavlin Kaur
Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number: 22-003001/AABS
Case Name: Elizabeth Cesario v. Intact Insurance Company
Written Submissions by:
For the Applicant: Harvey Katz, Counsel
For the Respondent: Robbie Brar, Counsel
BACKGROUND
1This request for reconsideration was filed by the applicant in this matter. It arises out of a preliminary issue decision dated March 30, 2023 (“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
2The applicant's request for reconsideration is dismissed.
ANALYSIS
3The 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:
b) The Tribunal made an error of law or fact such that the Tribunal would have likely reached a different result had the error not been made.
4Under 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.
5I 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 his case. I reject her assertion that the Tribunal made an error of law or fact.
Rule 18.2(b):
6The applicant submits that the Tribunal made significant errors of law or fact.
7The respondent submits that the Tribunal did not make an errors law or fact.
ANALYSIS
Error of fact
8It is the applicant’s position that certain facts may have been overlooked or omitted in my analysis. She states that to say that the ice was a direct cause of the injuries was factually incorrect. I disagree. I considered all of the facts in my analysis in paragraphs 4 to 28. In my view, the applicant is attempting to re-argue her case.
Error of law
9The applicant submits that I erred in my application of Porter v. Aviva Insurance Company of Canada, 2021 ONSC 3107 (“Porter”). She submits that even though the Tribunal is bound by the Porter decision, the conclusion that the applicant’s incident constitutes an accident within the meaning of section 3(1) of the Schedule can be still reached. The applicant attempts to distinguish the facts of her case from Porter. She submits that her injuries were caused by the use or operation of the car. In paragraphs 15 to 28 of the decision, I provided reasons why the use and operation of the car did not cause her injuries. I applied that test to the facts before me. In my view, the applicant is attempting to re-argue her case
10The 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
11For the reasons noted above, the applicant’s request for reconsideration is dismissed.
Tavlin Kaur
Adjudicator
Tribunals Ontario – Licence Appeal Tribunal
Released: July 14, 2023