RECONSIDERATION DECISION
Before: Bernard Trottier
Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number: 22-000176/AABS
Case Name: Security National Insurance Company v. Aklilu Thomas
Written Submissions by:
For the Applicant: Ricky Shen, Counsel Marie-Pier Couturier, Counsel
For the Respondent: Aklilu Thomas (self-represented)
OVERVIEW
1On February 5, 2024, Aklilu Thomas, the respondent, requested reconsideration of the Tribunal’s decision dated January 16, 2024 (“decision”).
2The Tribunal notes that in his Request for Reconsideration Form submitted to the Tribunal on February 5, 2024, the respondent indicated that his full name is Aklilu Thomas Bittena. In his written submissions, the respondent indicated that his name is Aklilu Thomas. In the previous hearing and in the decision, the respondent was known as Aklilu Thomas. For this reconsideration, the Tribunal will refer to the respondent as Aklilu Thomas.
3In its decision, the Tribunal found the applicant, Security National Insurance Company, is entitled to repayment of an income replacement benefit (“IRB”) in the amount of $10,847.17 as well as interest on any overdue amount. The Tribunal found that the applicant was not entitled to $500.00 in costs.
4The grounds for a request for reconsideration are found in Rule 18.2 of the Licence Appeal Tribunal Rules, 2023 (“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 committed a material breach 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; or
c) 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.
5The requesting party, the respondent, indicated on his Request for Reconsideration Form that 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. He requests reconsideration of the decision under Rule 18.2(b) above.
6The responding party, the applicant, argues in its submissions that the respondent has not met the grounds for reconsideration. The applicant submits that the request for reconsideration is an attempt to reargue the respondent’s case, which is not appropriate grounds for reconsideration. The applicant requests that the respondent’s request for reconsideration be dismissed.
7The respondent requests that the Tribunal reduce the amount of the IRB re-payment from $10,847.17 to $6,000.00. The respondent is silent in his submissions on interest on any overdue amounts.
RESULT
8The respondent’s reconsideration request is dismissed.
ANALYSIS
9The test for reconsideration under Rule 18.2 involves a high threshold. The reconsideration process is not an opportunity for a party to re-litigate its position where it disagrees with the Tribunal’s decision, or with the weight assigned to the evidence. The requestor must show how or why the decision falls into one of the categories in Rule 18.2.
Rule 18.2(b) Errors of Fact and Law
10I find that the respondent has not established grounds for reconsideration under Rule 18.2(b). The respondent submits that the Tribunal erred in law and fact by:
i. Not distinguishing between his gross and net income earned from delivery activities during the time that he was collecting IRB; and
ii. Not considering the respondent’s impecuniosity (inability to repay) in deciding the IRB repayment owed to the applicant.
The respondent did not demonstrate that the Tribunal failed to distinguish between gross and net income
11The respondent submits that the Tribunal erred in accepting the applicant’s calculation of net income from his Uber Canada Inc. (“Uber”) and SkipTheDishes food delivery activities. The respondent argues that the Tribunal did not consider that the amounts reported on his earning summaries from Uber and SkipTheDishes did not include operating expenses such as fuel, maintenance and insurance. He also argues that the amounts shown on the earnings summaries are subject to income tax and harmonized sales tax.
12I do not agree with the respondent and I see no error in the decision. At paragraph 36, the Tribunal noted that the applicant considered fixed and variable operating expenses in its net earnings calculations.
13At paragraph 21, the Tribunal noted that the respondent provided the applicant with copies of his 2019 Uber Tax Summary and his 2018 to 2021 SkipTheDishes earning summaries, as well as CRA Income Tax Returns and Notices of Assessment from 2017 to 2020.
14At paragraphs 9, 12, 31 and 36, the Tribunal noted that the respondent failed to comply with the Tribunal’s Motion Order of March 21, 2023, ordering the respondent to produce copies of his Uber earnings summaries from June 1, 2018 to April 30, 2021 as well as Canada Revenue Agency (“CRA”) Statements of Business Activities for Driver for 2018.
15Despite the absence of these documents, the Tribunal noted at paragraph 36 that the applicant’s accounting firm, PriceWaterhouse Coopers (“PwC”) made assumptions regarding fixed and variable operating expenses in calculating the respondent’s net earnings from delivery activities. The Tribunal also noted that the respondent made qualitative reference to operational costs but provided no quantitative submissions or evidence. In its decision, in the absence of evidence to refute PwC’s net earnings calculations, and the respondent’s failure to provide the documents ordered by the Motion Order of March 21, 2023, the Tribunal found the applicant’s net earnings calculations persuasive.
16I find the respondent is trying to reargue his case. In his submissions, the respondent is making the same arguments he made at the hearing without identifying any error in the decision. Reconsideration is not an opportunity for a rehearing. The fact the respondent does not agree with the Tribunal’s decision is not grounds for reconsideration.
17I find that the Tribunal did not make an error of fact or law in considering the amount of the IRB overpayment.
The respondent did not demonstrate that the Tribunal made an error in law with regard to his impecuniosity
18The respondent argues that the City of Toronto has passed new legislation as of October 12, 2023, that allows Private Transportation Company (“PTC”) licenses for 100% electric vehicles only. He argues that this restriction affects his income as a delivery driver since he cannot afford an electric vehicle and therefore he cannot make PTC deliveries in Toronto.
19In his reply submissions, the respondent points to the COVID-19 pandemic, the financial crisis and his type II diabetes as factors that contribute to his impecuniosity.
20He requests that the Tribunal consider his impecuniosity in its decision.
21I find that the Tribunal considered the respondent’s argument of impecuniosity at paragraphs 32, 33, 34 and 37 of the decision and rejected it on the grounds, cited in Myers v. Metropolitan Toronto Chief of Police (1995 CanLII 11086 ON SCDC), that the courts and the Tribunal should avoid “a situation in which litigants without means can ignore the rules of the court with impunity, and the distastefulness of creating a rule incapable of consistent application”.
22As with the issue of gross versus net delivery income set out above, I find the respondent is trying to reargue his case. He has not identified an error of fact or law made by the Tribunal in its decision. Reconsideration is not an opportunity for a rehearing. The fact the respondent does not agree with the Tribunal’s decision is not grounds for reconsideration.
23I find that the Tribunal did not make an error of fact or law when it ignored the respondent’s impecuniosity in considering the amount of the IRB overpayment.
CONCLUSION & ORDER
24The respondent’s request for reconsideration is dismissed.
Bernard Trottier
Adjudicator
Tribunals Ontario – Licence Appeal Tribunal
Released: April 5, 2024