RECONSIDERATION DECISION
Before:
Brett Todd
Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number:
20-005424/AABS
Case Name:
Ronald Lanzon v. Economical Insurance Company
Written Submissions by:
For the Applicant:
Satwant Merwar, Counsel
For the Respondent:
Martin P. Forget, Counsel
BACKGROUND
1This request for reconsideration was filed by the applicant on June 6, 2023. It arises out of a decision dated May 16, 2023 (“decision” or “initial decision”) in which the Licence Appeal Tribunal (the “Tribunal”) found that the applicant was not catastrophically impaired and that the applicant was entitled to two treatment plans and interest.
2Grounds 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 & Procedure, Version I, (October 2, 2017) as amended (the “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. Reconsideration is not an opportunity for the requesting party to relitigate its case or to ask the Tribunal to reassess the evidence.
4In this instance, the applicant is seeking reconsideration of the decision that he was not catastrophically impaired. He submits that, pursuant to Rules 18.2(a) and 18.2(b), the Tribunal violated the rules of procedural fairness and that the Tribunal made an error of law or fact such that a different result would likely have been reached had the error not been made.
5The applicant is requesting that the decision be varied to find that the medical evidence presented by Dr. Lisa Becker and Dr. Harold Becker is compliant with the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule – Effective September 1, 2010 (including amendments effective June 1, 2016) (the “Schedule”).
RESULT
6The applicant’s request for reconsideration is granted, in part.
7The Tribunal’s decision is varied and the decision with respect to catastrophic impairment is cancelled.
8The Tribunal will rehear issue #1 in the initial decision, namely “Has the applicant sustained a catastrophic impairment as defined by the Schedule?” The rehearing will be conducted based on the record and the transcript/recording of the initial hearing, with written submissions from the parties as set out below.
PROCEDURAL ISSUE
9On July 28, 2023, the applicant filed a Notice of Motion (“NOM”) requesting an extension to the deadline set for reply submissions in this reconsideration.
10In this NOM, the applicant noted that his reply submissions had been served on opposing counsel on July 21, 2023, three days after the deadline of July 18, 2023 that was set in the Reconsideration Submissions Letter sent to both parties by the Tribunal on June 14, 2023. Further, he explained that this was the result of an error, as office staff had inadvertently noted this deadline to be July 28, 2023.
11The respondent did not comment on these late reply submissions.
12I am allowing the reply submissions into evidence. I find that there is no prejudice to the respondent through this late filing. I note that