RECONSIDERATION DECISION
Before: Ludmilla Jarda
Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number: 23-007774/AABS
Case Name: Stephen Wasielewski v. Intact Insurance Company
Written Submissions by:
For the Applicant: Stephen Wasielewski, Self-represented
For the Respondent: Nisaa Khan, Counsel
OVERVIEW
1On April 1, 2024, the applicant requested reconsideration of the Licence Appeal Tribunal (“Tribunal”) preliminary issue decision dated March 18, 2024 (“decision”).
2In its decision, the Tribunal found that the applicant had not met his evidentiary burden to establish that he complied with the timeline prescribed by s. 32(1) of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule – Effective September 1, 2010 (the “Schedule”). As a result, the applicant’s claim for accident benefits was barred, and the Tribunal dismissed the application.
3The 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.
4The applicant’s request for reconsideration is set out in an email dated April 1, 2024 in which he states that he contacted the respondent in April 2021, he advised that he had been involved in a serious accident in June 2017 and that he sustained injuries as a result of the accident. The applicant claims that the respondent told him to complete various forms and that he would receive weekly payments from July 2017 to May 2021. While the applicant acknowledges that his application was dismissed by the Tribunal, he is displeased with the outcome. He notes that he spent a lot of time and money in completing the forms requested by the respondent, and he is upset that the respondent did not inform him in April 2021 that he was time-barred from pursuing accident benefits.
5The applicant is seeking reconsideration pursuant to Rules 18.2(a), (b), and (c). The applicant does not identify the remedy or relief in his submissions made in support of this request for reconsideration.
6The respondent argues that the applicant’s request for reconsideration should be dismissed.
7Pursuant to Rule 18.4, upon reconsidering a decision of the Tribunal, the Tribunal may: (a) dismiss the request; or (b) after providing the responding parties an opportunity to make submissions, (i) confirm, vary, or cancel the decision or order, or (ii) order a rehearing on all or part of the matter. If the Tribunal orders a rehearing of the matter, the Tribunal may issue procedural and administrative direction and any such further orders as the Tribunal deems necessary.
RESULT
8The applicant’s request for reconsideration 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 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(a): Jurisdiction or procedural fairness
10I find that the applicant has not established that the Tribunal acted outside its jurisdiction or committed a material breach of procedural fairness pursuant to Rule 18.2(a).
11The applicant does not provide any submissions explaining why he believes that the Tribunal acted outside its jurisdiction or committed a material breach of procedural fairness.
12Accordingly, I find that the applicant has not established grounds for a reconsideration of the decision under Rule 18.2(a).
Rule 18.2(b): Error of law or fact
13I find that the applicant has not established that the Tribunal made an error of law or fact in its determination that his claim for accident benefits was barred due to his failure to comply with the timeline prescribed by s. 32(1) of the Schedule.
14The applicant does not provide any submissions explaining why he believes that the Tribunal made an error of law or fact in its decision.
15Accordingly, I find that the applicant has not established grounds for a reconsideration of the decision under Rule 18.2(b).
Rule 18.2(c): New evidence
16I find that the applicant has not demonstrated that there is evidence that was not before the Tribunal when rendering its decision, could not have been obtained previously by the applicant, and would likely affect the result. As such, the applicant has not satisfied the criteria of Rule 18.2(c).
17The applicant has not directed the Tribunal to any new evidence. Further, the applicant does not provide any submissions explaining why he could not have previously obtained new evidence and how new evidence would likely affect the outcome of his application.
18Accordingly, I find that the applicant has not established grounds for a reconsideration under Rule 18.2(c).
CONCLUSION & ORDER
19The applicant has not established grounds for reconsideration under Rules 18.2(a), (b), or (c).
20The applicant’s request for reconsideration is dismissed.
Ludmilla Jarda
Adjudicator
Tribunals Ontario – Licence Appeal Tribunal
Released: July 29, 2024