RECONSIDERATION DECISION
Before:
E. Louise Logan
Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number:
23-003507/AABS
Case Name:
Martin Wright v. CAA Insurance
Written Submissions by:
For the Applicant:
Martin Wright, Self-represented
For the Respondent:
Priyanka Monpara, Counsel
OVERVIEW
1On June 17, 2024, the applicant requested reconsideration of the Tribunal’s decision dated May 22, 2024 (“decision”).
2The issues in dispute were whether the applicant’s injuries are predominantly minor as defined in section 3 of the Schedule and whether the applicant is entitled to a non-earner benefit, attendant care services, treatment plans and interest. The Tribunal dismissed the application because the applicant did not attend the hearing and did not present evidence or make submissions.
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 is seeking reconsideration pursuant to Rule 18.2(c). He does not indicate the relief he is seeking.
5The respondent argues the request for reconsideration should be dismissed.
RESULT
6The applicant’s request for reconsideration is dismissed.
ANALYSIS
7The test for reconsideration under Rule 18.2 involves a high threshold. The reconsideration process is not an opportunity for a party to re-argue its position where it disagrees with the Tribunal’s decision. The requestor must show how or why the decision falls into one of the categories in Rule 18.2.
8The applicant has submitted an operative summary of a surgical procedure dated October 28, 2022. He has also submitted an operative summary of a surgical procedure dated March 27, 2023. The applicant has not provided any submissions indicating how this evidence meets the test in Rule 18.2(c).
9The respondent submits that although the reports submitted by the applicant are new, the information contained in the reports is the same as the information contained in the clinical notes and records, albeit in a different format. The respondent further submits that even if the reports provided new information, it would not have impacted the decision as non-earner benefits were paid to the applicant with interest prior to the hearing, and the medical benefits were also paid in full and withdrawn by the applicant’s former representative prior to the hearing. The respondent further submits that the applicant has not put forward any argument as to how these new reports would have altered the decision.
10I am dismissing the applicant’s request for reconsideration as the applicant has not established how the reports dated October 28, 2022 and March 27, 2023 meet the test in Rule 18.2(c). As noted above, the onus is on the requesting party, in this case the applicant, to establish grounds for reconsideration. While the applicant has submitted two medical reports, he has not made submissions to show how these reports establish grounds for reconsideration pursuant to Rule 18.2(c).
11Reconsideration is a limited, error correcting exercise. It is not an appeal or a new hearing of the issues in dispute. I find that in the absence of supporting submissions, the applicant has not met his onus to establish grounds for reconsideration. Therefore, the applicant’s request for reconsideration is dismissed.
CONCLUSION & ORDER
12The applicant’s request for reconsideration is dismissed.
E. Louise Logan
Vice-Chair
Licence Appeal Tribunal
Released: August 23, 2024