Sarpong v. Intact Insurance Company
RECONSIDERATION DECISION
Before: Christopher Evans
Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number: 21-002655/AABS
Case Name: Benjamin Sarpong v. Intact Insurance Company
Written Submissions by:
For the Applicant: Doina Marinescu, Paralegal
For the Respondent: Amir Fazel, Counsel
BACKGROUND
1The applicant filed this request for reconsideration. It arises out of a decision in which I found that he had not proved he sustained a non-minor injury, that he was entitled to an income replacement benefit from April 29 to July 5, 2019 but not after, and that he was not entitled to the medical benefits in dispute or Harmonized Sales Tax on an income replacement report.
2The applicant requests reconsideration under Rules 18.2(a) and (b) of the Common Rules of Practice & Procedure of the Licence Appeal Tribunal, Animal Care Review Board, and Fire Safety Commission. He does not specify what remedy or relief he seeks as required by Rule 18.1.
RESULT
3I deny the applicant’s request for reconsideration.
ANALYSIS
4The grounds for reconsideration are limited to those set out in Rule 18.2. Reconsideration is not an opportunity for the requesting party to reargue its case or ask the Tribunal to reweigh the evidence.
1. Errors of fact or law
5The test for reconsideration under Rule 18.2(b) is whether the Tribunal made an error of law or fact such that it would likely have reached a different result had it not made the error.
6The applicant submits that I erred in finding he had not proved he sustained a non-minor injury. He argues that I did not consider the evidence of chronic pain and psychological impairment that was put before me, including the Canadian Institute of Pain and Disability’s definition of chronic pain. The remainder of his submissions is a word-for-word reproduction of paragraphs from his submissions for the original hearing.
7The respondent submits that I reviewed the evidence of chronic pain and psychological impairment in my decision, and that the applicant has not identified any specific errors in my findings. It notes that the applicant did not put the Canadian Institute of Pain and Disability’s definition of chronic pain before me, and that in any event this definition is not the test for a non-minor injury under the Schedule. It argues that the applicant seeks a “wholesale reweighing of evidence,” which Rule 18.2(b) does not permit: Taylor v Aviva Canada Inc., 2018 ONSC 4472 (Div Ct) at para 70.
8I find that I did not make an error of fact or law. The respondent is correct that the Canadian Institute of Pain and Disability’s definition of chronic pain was not put before me and that it is not the test under the Schedule. The applicant has not identified any findings of fact that were unsupported by or inconsistent with the evidence, nor has he identified any errors of law. The remainder of his submissions is an attempt to reargue his case.
2. Breach of procedural fairness
9The test for reconsideration under Rule 18.2(a) is whether the Tribunal acted outside its jurisdiction or violated the rules of procedural fairness.
10The applicant submits that I violated the rules of procedural fairness and natural justice because I made errors of fact and/or law. I disagree. I found above that I did not make any such errors. In any event, an error is not a breach of procedural fairness in and of itself.
ORDER
11The applicant’s request for reconsideration is dismissed.
Christopher Evans Adjudicator Tribunals Ontario – Licence Appeal Tribunal
Released: October 4, 2023