RECONSIDERATION DECISION
Before: Michael Beauchesne
Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number: 22-004709/AABS
Case Name: Colbert Bernard v. Intact Insurance Company
Written Submissions by:
For the Applicant: Vanessa Liang, Counsel
For the Respondent: Carman Lee, Counsel
OVERVIEW
1On April 29, 2024, the applicant requested reconsideration of the Tribunal’s decision dated April 22, 2024 (the “decision”).
2The decision maintained the applicant in the Minor Injury Guideline (the “MIG”) and determined the applicant was not entitled to the disputed OCF-18s or OCF-6, inclusive of interest.
3The grounds for a request for reconsideration are found in Rule 18.2 of the Licence Appeal Tribunal Rules, 2023 (the “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.
4In this case, the applicant is arguing criteria (b) and (c) as outlined in Rule 18.2.
5In his reconsideration request submissions, the applicant requests an order to vary the decision, but fails to provide details on what aspect(s) of the decision he wants varied. In his reconsideration reply submissions, the applicant clarifies this request by asking the Tribunal to vary its decision to reflect that the applicant has been taken out of the MIG, and that all issues in dispute are resolved.
6In the alternative, the applicant requests the Tribunal cancel its decision dated April 22, 2024.
RESULT
7The applicant’s request for reconsideration of the Tribunal’s decision is granted. The decision is cancelled.
ANALYSIS
8The 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.
9For context, the respondent’s submissions on this reconsideration request point to a signed release, dated March 11, 2024, that settles the applicant’s claim on a full and final basis. The respondent argues that the applicant’s reconsideration request is improper and should not be considered, as all issues pertaining to the applicant’s claim were resolved prior to the decision being released. The respondent also submits that it takes no issue with the applicant’s request to vary or cancel the decision.
10I accept that the parties settled this matter on a full and final basis prior to the Tribunal releasing its decision, despite the applicant not advising the Tribunal, which he was required to do. In fact, the applicant was instructed on several occasions to immediately advise the Tribunal in writing if the parties reached an agreement on the issues in dispute. These instructions were made in the Case Conference Report and Order released on February 21, 2023; the Notice of Hearing dated March 23, 2023; and the Motion Order released August 29, 2023.
11While the respondent submits that the applicant’s reconsideration request is not valid, I find it takes no position on the cancelling of the decision. I further find the Tribunal’s decision is moot because the parties settled this claim on a full-and-final basis prior to the decision’s release. As such, I order the decision to be cancelled.
COSTS
12I find the respondent is not entitled to costs.
13Rule 19.1 provides for a party to request costs, if that party believes the other party in a proceeding has acted unreasonably, frivolously, vexatiously, or in bad faith. This is to be read in conjunction with Rule 19.2, which provides that a request for costs may be made to the Tribunal in writing or orally at a case conference or hearing, at any time before the decision or order is released. Rule 19.4 further sets out the requirements for that request, which must include reasons and the particulars of the alleged conduct.
14The respondent’s reconsideration submissions seek costs in the amount of $500.00. The respondent characterizes the applicant’s reconsideration request as unreasonable and frivolous, adding that it is a “complete waste of time and resources.”
15The applicant’s reply argues that the respondent is not entitled to costs because his reconsideration request does not prejudice the respondent. The applicant adds that the respondent is not entitled to a “windfall,” and maintains his reconsideration request is reasonable.
16I agree that the applicant’s conduct is both unreasonable and frivolous. The applicant is seeking reconsideration of a decision for a matter that was resolved between the parties well prior to the release of the decision. In my view, the applicant is using Rule 18.2 to remedy his own error, which was failing to immediately advise the Tribunal that his claim had settled on a full and final basis on March 11, 2024. I find this is an abuse of process that does not have any serious purpose or value.
17However, pursuant to Rule 19.2, I find the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to order costs where the proceedings involve a reconsideration request. Rule 19.2 only allows the Tribunal to consider cost requests made during a case conference or hearing. I therefore decline to order costs and dismiss the respondent’s request for same.
CONCLUSION & ORDER
18The applicant’s request for reconsideration of the Tribunal’s decision is granted. The decision is cancelled.
19The respondent’s request for costs is dismissed.
Michael Beauchesne Adjudicator Tribunals Ontario – Licence Appeal Tribunal
Released: July 19, 2024