RECONSIDERATION DECISION
Before: Sandra Driesel, Adjudicator
Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number: 20-000279/AABS
Case Name: Roland Spiegel v. Intact Insurance Company
Written Submissions by:
For the Applicant: Roland Spiegel, Self-represented Applicant
For the Respondent: Jasmina Mrkalj-Skelly, Counsel
BACKGROUND
1This request for reconsideration was filed by the applicant.
2It arises out of a decision released March 15, 2023 ("decision"), in which the Tribunal found that:
a. The applicant's claim for accident benefits, interest and an award were dismissed. The benefits in dispute were $5,578.26 for medical cannabis and an expense of $200.00 for the completion of a medical form (submitted on an OCF-6 expense claim form);
b. The respondent was awarded costs in the amount of $2,500.00.
3The grounds for a request for reconsideration are contained in Rule 18.2 of the Tribunal's Common Rules of Practice & Procedure of the Licence Appeal Tribunal, Animal Care Review Board, and Fire Safety Commission ("Rules"). To grant a request for reconsideration, 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.
4On Sunday, April 9, 2023, via email, the applicant submitted a Request for Reconsideration form (dated April 6, 2023) seeking a reconsideration pursuant to Rule 18.2(a), (b), (c) and (d). The request was also sent to the respondent. With his request, the applicant filed supporting documents as follows:
a. A copy of an insurer's letter dated April 6, 2023, with supporting documents, requesting attendance at an insurer's examination for the file related to the accident of October 30, 2023 (Tribunal file: 20-000279/AABS, the subject of the request for reconsideration);
b. A copy of an insurer's letter dated March 3, 2023, with supporting documents, requesting attendance at an insurer's examination for the file related to the accident of October 18, 2011, which is not the subject of this reconsideration request.
5The applicant failed to provide an explanation as to why the above documents were submitted with the reconsideration request.
6On April 10, 2023, the respondent replied to the applicant's request, submitting that the applicant's request for reconsideration was late filed and is therefore statute barred from proceeding. The respondent's correspondence references Rule 18.1, which states a request for reconsideration must be made within 21 days of the date of the decision. With the decision being dated March 15, 2023, the deadline to file the reconsideration request was April 5, 2023. The respondent did not provide any other submissions on the request.
7On April 19, 2023, the Tribunal sent the parties a Reconsideration Submissions Letter. The letter explains why the Tribunal accepted the request after April 5, 2023, with consideration given for the method used to deliver the decision to the applicant (via regular mail). This letter included submission dates for the reconsideration request as follows:
a. The respondent's submissions were due May 18, 2023; and,
b. The applicant's reply submissions were due seven business days after receipt of the respondent's submissions.
8Neither party made any submissions in support of their position related to the reconsideration request.
RESULT
9The applicant's request for reconsideration is dismissed.
ANALYSIS
10The threshold for a reconsideration is high, and the onus is on the applicant to establish how or why the decision falls within any of the Rule 18.2 grounds to warrant reconsideration. I find the applicant has not established grounds for reconsideration with respect to this decision for the following reasons.
Rule 18.1 Request for Reconsideration
11Rule 18.1 of the Rules states:
The Tribunal may, on its own initiative or upon request of a party, if the request is made within 21 days of the date of the decision, reconsider any decision of the Tribunal that finally disposes of an appeal.
A request for reconsideration from a party should be in the form, if any, that is provided on the Tribunal's website for reconsideration requests. The request must be served on all other parties and must include:
a. All submissions in support of the request, which must specify the applicable criteria under Rule 18.2;
b. Notification if the party is seeking judicial review or pursuing an appeal in relation to the decision; and
c. The remedy or relief sought.
The determination of the request for reconsideration shall be heard by written submissions and may be heard by the same Member whose decision is the subject of the request.
12While the applicant's request for reconsideration form referenced all four criteria under 18.2, his request failed to include submissions to support his claim, pursuant to the requirements of Rule 18.1(a). Given the absence of submissions in support of the applicant's request, I find the applicant has not met his burden to establish how, or why, the decision falls within any of the criteria set out in Rule 18.2 which would support reconsideration of the decision. Accordingly, the Tribunal has no basis to reconsider its initial decision.
ORDER
13The applicant's request for reconsideration is dismissed.
Sandra Driesel
Adjudicator
Tribunals Ontario – Licence Appeal Tribunal
Released: September 1, 2023