RECONSIDERATION DECISION
Before: E. Louise Logan, Vice-Chair, Delegate
Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number: 22-009513/AABS
Case Name: Hasan Meherab v. Allstate Canada
Written Submissions by:
For the Applicant: Zahangir Karbir, Representative
For the Respondent: Shelby Chung, Counsel
OVERVIEW
1On November 13, 2023, the applicant requested reconsideration of the Tribunal’s preliminary issue decision dated November 6, 2023 (“decision”).
2The issue before the Tribunal in the decision was whether the applicant had entered into a valid full and final settlement with the respondent, and if so, whether the applicant was precluded from proceeding with a claim for rehabilitation benefits. In the decision, the Tribunal determined that it lacked jurisdiction to consider the issue because the applicant had not met the requirements in section 9.1(8) of Regulation 664. It dismissed the applicant’s application for lack of jurisdiction.
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 requesting reconsideration under Rule 18.2(b). He is seeking a rehearing of the matter.
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-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.
8I find the applicant has not established grounds for reconsideration for the following reasons.
9While the applicant’s reconsideration submissions are not clear, he seems to be arguing that the Tribunal did not consider his submissions for the preliminary issue hearing. He submits that the decision is “one-sided”. The applicant also repeats his arguments, made at the preliminary issue hearing, that the settlement agreement only includes medical benefits not rehabilitation benefits. The applicant submits that as he is claiming rehabilitation benefits, which are not covered by the terms of settlement, he is not required to return the money he received as consideration for settlement.
10The respondent argues that the applicant has not shown that any of the Rule 18.2 criteria for reconsideration have been met. It submits that while the applicant seems to argue that the Tribunal failed to consider the submissions filed by the applicant for the preliminary issue hearing, this is not supported by the decision. It also submits that the applicant is attempting to relitigate the question of whether or not a valid settlement took place.
11I see no error in the decision with respect to the applicant’s written submissions for the initial hearing. The decision is not one-sided. At paragraph 3, the Tribunal explicitly declined to consider the respondent’s arguments about the timing of the applicant’s submissions. At paragraphs 6 and 7, under the heading “Parties’ positions” the Tribunal summarized the submissions of both parties. I find that it is clear from the decision that the Tribunal considered the applicant’s submissions for the preliminary issue hearing.
12I also find that the applicant’s arguments with respect to the terms of settlement do not establish grounds for reconsideration. The Tribunal found, for the reasons set out in the decision, that the applicant had not met the requirements of Regulation 664, and therefore had not rescinded the settlement in accordance with the legislation. The Tribunal stated, at paragraph 9, that it cannot adjudicate this dispute until the applicant meets the mandatory requirements under section 9.1(8) of Regulation 664. At paragraph 10, it explicitly declined to make a finding on whether the parties agreed to a full and final settlement because it did not have jurisdiction to do so. The Tribunal dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction.
13In his reconsideration submissions, the applicant makes the same arguments as at the preliminary issue hearing. I find that the applicant is attempting to re-argue his case. He has not established an error of law or fact. While the applicant may disagree with the decision, that is not grounds for reconsideration.
CONCLUSION & ORDER
14The applicant’s request for reconsideration is dismissed.
E. Louise Logan
Vice-Chair
Tribunals Ontario – Licence Appeal Tribunal
Released: January 8, 2024