RECONSIDERATION DECISION
Before: Matthew Frontini
Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number: 22-006060/AABS
Case Name: Yan Xue Lin v. Allstate Insurance
Written Submissions by:
For the Applicant: Anthony Ngai, Paralegal
For the Respondent: Sonya Katrycz, Counsel
BACKGROUND
1The Applicant is seeking reconsideration of the Tribunal’s Order, dated April 17, 2023, which dismissed the application without a hearing pursuant to Rules 3.4 and 3.5 of the 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”). Specifically, the application was dismissed without a hearing on the basis that the applicant had abandoned the proceeding pursuant to Rule 3.4(d).
2The Applicant submits that there is evidence that was not before the Tribunal and could not have been obtained previously that would likely have affected the Tribunal’s decision.
3The Applicant is seeking an order cancelling the Tribunal’s decision and reinstating the proceedings so the applicant can participate in a future case conference.
4The Respondent opposes the Applicant’s request for reconsideration.
RESULT
5The Applicant's request for reconsideration is dismissed. The Applicant has not established grounds for reconsideration pursuant to Rule 18.2(d) of the Rules.
BACKGROUND
The Applicant Fails to Attend the First Case Conference
6The first Case Conference in this application was scheduled to proceed on February 27, 2023. The Applicant did not deliver at Case Conference Summary. Neither the applicant nor her representative attended. Vice Chair Tyler Moore, an interpreter and a representative for the Respondent and counsel for the Respondent did attend.
7As the Applicant’s participation is mandatory pursuant to Rule 14.6 of the Rules, Vice-Chair Moore ordered a resumption of the case conference and put the applicant on notice of the Tribunal’s intention to dismiss the application as abandoned without a hearing if the Applicant did not attend the resumption of case conference.
8The Applicant was also advised that under Rule 3.5, the parties had the right to make written submissions on the Tribunal’s intention to dismiss the applicant’s appeal without a hearing, and that the submissions would be due to the Tribunal at least 1 business day prior to the resumption.
The Applicant Fails to Attend the Second Case Conference
9The case conference was scheduled to resume on April 14, 2023. The Applicant chose not to make any written submissions in advance of the resumption of the case conference.
10The Applicant failed to attend the resumption of the case conference on April 14, 2023.
11The Respondent’s representative, the Respondent’s counsel, the Mandarin interpreter, and I remained on the line for 30 minutes waiting for the Applicant. The Applicant’s paralegal, Anthony Ngai, left the case conference after 20 minutes, apparently to find his client. He never returned to the case conference and could not be reached again despite repeated efforts from the Respondent’s lawyer. He was not heard from again until May 2, 2023, when he filed this Request for Reconsideration.
ANALYSIS
12Reconsideration is only warranted in cases where an adjudicator has made a significant legal or evidentiary mistake preventing a just outcome, where false evidence has been admitted, or where genuinely undiscoverable evidence comes to light after a hearing.
13The grounds for a request for reconsideration to be allowed are contained in Rule 18 of the Rules. A request for reconsideration will not be granted unless one of relevant criteria have been established. In this case the Applicant is arguing Rule 18.2(d) applies:
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.
14The Applicant claims she was in China at the time of the case conference and experienced technical difficulty calling into the case conference. The Applicant has provided a screen shot of a phone call log as support for her assertion that she tried to dial into the case conference and was prevented from doing so by technical issues.
15I find the Applicant has not established grounds for reconsideration under Rule 18(2)(d). The fact that the Applicant was in China was not before the Tribunal when the decision was rendered. In fact, the Applicant’s paralegal advised that he did not know where the Applicant was or why she was not on the call. He eventually left the call to try and contact the Applicant and did not return to the Second Case Conference. The fact of the Applicant’s whereabouts were known and could have been presented to the Tribunal
16Whether the evidence that the Applicant was in China and anticipated difficulty attending the resumption of the case conference could not have been obtained previously is a different matter. As mentioned, the Applicant’s paralegal did not know where the Applicant was and could have been informed of the circumstances in advance of the case conference. The Applicant was also explicitly invited to provide written submissions on the Tribunal’s intention to dismiss the application. She chose not to provide any submissions.
17As evidence of the Applicant’s circumstances in China could have been provided to the Tribunal prior to the Request for Reconsideration, the purported screenshot of the Applicant’s phone logs is not evidence pursuant to Rule 18.2(d).
18Finally, I do not find the Applicant’s submissions persuasive or credible. The screenshot is in Chinese and a translation has not been provided.
19Second, there is no evidence in support of the meaning of the screen shot or any of the applicant’s paralegal’s submissions. There are simply submissions, which are not evidence. There is no affidavit providing sworn evidence of the purported attempts made by the Applicant and an unnamed relative’s daughter who was assisting the Applicant with the call.
20Even if the Applicant’s unsupported submissions were to be accepted, they do not assist the Applicant. The Applicant’s argues that the time the case conference was scheduled to commence in China was 1:00 AM, which corresponded to 1 PM EST. However, the first call attempt was made at 1:31 AM. Even if the call log does demonstrate that the applicant was attempting to call into the case conference, the first call was made well after the case conference started and when I had ended case conference and orally dismissed the application as abandoned.
21Finally, even if I were to accept that the screenshot and applicant’s submissions constitute evidence that was not before the Tribunal and could not have been obtained, this evidence would not have affected the result. Rule 14.6 requires parties to provide their representatives with instructions regarding the issues in dispute and authority to make agreements. In this case, the Applicant’s representative did not know the Applicant’s whereabouts, had not been in contact with the Applicant and did not have instructions or authority.
22In view of the foregoing, the Applicant’s request for reconsideration does not provide any new evidence that would have changed the Tribunal’s decision in dismissing her application as abandoned for failing to attend the second case conference in a row.
CONCLUSION
23For the reasons noted above, I deny the Applicant's request for reconsideration. The request for reconsideration is dismissed.
Matthew Frontini
Adjudicator
Tribunals Ontario – Licence Appeal Tribunal
Released: September 7, 2023