RECONSIDERATION DECISION
Before:
E. Louise Logan
Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number:
20-009375/AABS
Case Name:
Aaron Lagman v. Belairdirect
Written Submissions by:
For the Applicant:
Ilia Estrah, Counsel
For the Respondent:
Daniel Hynes, Counsel
BACKGROUND
1The applicant is seeking a reconsideration of the Tribunal’s decision released on June 7, 2023 (“decision”). In the decision, the Tribunal determined that the applicant’s injuries are not predominantly minor and therefore he is not subject to the monetary limits of the Minor Injury Guideline, and that he is not entitled to the treatment plans in dispute or interest.
2The grounds for a request for reconsideration are found 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 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.
3The applicant is seeking a reconsideration pursuant to Rule 18.2(b). The applicant requests a determination that the treatment plan / OCF-18 dated September 29, 2019 is reasonable and necessary. He is also seeking applicable interest. The respondent requests that the request for reconsideration be dismissed.
RESULT
4The applicant’s request for reconsideration is dismissed.
ANALYSIS
5The test for reconsideration is a high one. It is not an invitation for the Tribunal to reweigh evidence or an opportunity for a party to re-litigate its position where it disagrees with the decision or where it failed to meet its burden at first instance. The requestor must show how or why the decision falls into one of the categories in Rule 18.2.
6The applicant argues that the Tribunal made an error of fact such that the Tribunal would have reached a different result had the error not been made. The applicant points specifically to paragraph 23 of the decision. He argues that the Tribunal erred in referring to the treatment plan as proposing psychological treatment when the treatment plan relates to a psychological assessment. He has provided a copy of the treatment plan with his reconsideration submissions.
7The applicant speculates that this alleged error was based on the language in the May 17, 2021 Case Conference Report and Order which referred to the treatment plan as being for “psychological services”. The applicant submits that despite not having a copy of the treatment plan in dispute at the time of the hearing, the Tribunal would nevertheless have reached a different determination had it correctly understood that the treatment plan relates to a psychological assessment.
8I disagree. I find the applicant has not identified an error, and therefore has not established grounds for reconsideration, for the following reasons.
9At paragraph 16 of the decision, the Tribunal noted that it did not have the OCF-18s for three of the treatment plans in dispute, including the OCF-18 for psychological services that is the subject of this reconsideration. The Tribunal also noted that the applicant did not make any submissions as to whether the treatment plans were reasonable and necessary, and that even when the respondent pointed out that the applicant had made no submissions in support of the treatment plans, the applicant did not make reply submissions.
10At paragraph 23, under the heading “Psychological Services” the Tribunal set out its reasons for finding the applicant was not entitled to the treatment plan as follows:
Again, no OCF-18 has been provided. The applicant did not make any submissions in support of this treatment plan either. He does briefly state that one of the denied treatment plans is for psychological treatment. Dr. Belyakova recommends 8 sessions of cognitive behavioural therapy in her report, however I have no way of knowing if this is what is contained within the disputed OCF-18, who will be completing the treatment, how much it costs, or what the goals of the treatment are. It appears that $2,260 for 8 sessions of psychotherapy is excessive on its own, so there must be more to the treatment plan that the applicant has not even attempted to explain. The applicant has not proven on a balance of probabilities that this treatment plan is reasonable and necessary.
11I find that it is clear from the decision that the Tribunal did not have the submissions or evidence necessary to determine what the disputed treatment plan was for, or whether it was reasonable and necessary. This was not an error on the Tribunal’s part. Demonstrating that the treatment plan is reasonable and necessary was the applicant’s onus to meet at first instance. Having failed to meet this onus, the applicant cannot convincingly argue on reconsideration that the Tribunal erred in its description and assessment of a treatment plan that it did not have at the time of the hearing, which the applicant did not provide, and for which the applicant made no supporting submissions.
12I find the applicant is attempting to re-argue his case, which is not grounds for reconsideration.
CONCLUSION
13For the reasons noted above, I deny the applicant’s request for reconsideration. The request for reconsideration is dismissed.
E. Louise Logan
Vice-Chair
Tribunals Ontario – Licence Appeal Tribunal
Released: September 18, 2023