RECONSIDERATION DECISION
Before:
Craig Mazerolle, Vice-Chair
Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number:
23-014514/AABS
Case Name:
Shelly Hogan v. Allstate Canada
Written Submissions by:
For the Applicant:
Jono Schneider, Counsel
For the Respondent:
Maia Abbas, Counsel
OVERVIEW
1On August 30, 2025, the applicant requested reconsideration of the Tribunal’s decision released August 29, 2025 (“decision”).
2Stemming from an accident that occurred on July 9, 2021 and a request for benefits made pursuant to the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule – Effective September 1, 2010 (including amendments effective June 1, 2016) (“Schedule”), the parties’ dispute was set down for a written hearing. In the decision, the adjudicator found the applicant did not demonstrate entitlement to the four treatment plans, award, and interest in dispute. The adjudicator further concluded that the respondent was not entitled to costs.
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 relies on Rule 18.2(a) and Rule 18.2(b) to support her request for reconsideration. She is seeking an order to set aside the decision and schedule a rehearing.
5The respondent asks the Tribunal to dismiss this request.
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.
8Alleging both an error of fact and a breach of procedural fairness, the applicant’s reconsideration request is based on her argument that the Tribunal did not consider the evidence before it, namely, the document brief she served and filed on April 24, 2024. According to the applicant, while the Tribunal “acknowledged that a Supplemental Document Brief had been filed”, it appears from the decision that the original document brief was not considered. By detailing the different ways that the evidence from this first brief supported entitlement to the issues, the applicant claims the Tribunal erred in its assessment of her case. Further, the applicant argues that, even if there are no accompanying submissions, the Tribunal is still obligated to review the documentary evidence: “It is an error to equate an absence of submissions with an absence of evidence.”
9There is no dispute that the applicant did not provide submissions as part of the written hearing scheduled for January 10, 2025. The consequence of this lack of submissions was addressed at several points in the decision. First, when determining whether to proceed with the hearing without the applicant’s submissions, the adjudicator stated at paragraphs 6, 7, and 12 – 16 (emphasis added):
The applicant has not provided submissions in relation to any of the issues in dispute for this hearing. The applicant did not withdraw her application to the Tribunal.
The parties, including the applicant personally, participated in a case conference on April 24, 2024 (“Case Conference”). The applicant filed a Case Conference Summary on April 24, 2024 and a Document Brief of the Applicant.
The applicant was provided with the due dates for submissions in the CCRO. Submissions were due 30 calendar days prior to the scheduled hearing or by December 10, 2024. Reply submissions were due 7 calendar days prior to the scheduled hearing or by January 3, 2025.
On November 8, 2024, the applicant filed a “Supplemental Document Brief”, but no submissions in, or accompanying, the Supplemental Document Brief.
On January 3, 2025, the applicant was notified by the Tribunal by email to her counsel that written hearing submissions and reply submissions had not been received. There was no response or request for an extension.
The respondent made submissions for this hearing, requesting dismissal of the dispute and costs.
In accordance with s. 7(2) of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, I am satisfied that the applicant had notice of the hearing and as a result, the hearing proceeded in the absence of submissions of the applicant.
10Then, after noting that the applicant has the onus to demonstrate that the disputed treatment plans are reasonable and necessary, the adjudicator made the following findings at paragraphs 18 – 20 about the lack of submissions (emphasis added):
I find that the applicant is not entitled to the treatment plans in dispute. She has not met her onus to demonstrate that they are reasonable and necessary because she failed to make submissions on entitlement.
The applicant filed a Supplemental Document Brief for this hearing in advance of the due date for submissions. This brief consisted of an index and copies of the indexed documents. The documents are: OHIP summary, clinical notes and records, medical and rehabilitation reports, treatment, prescription summaries and Ontario Disability Support. However, the brief did not contain any submissions on the treatment plans in dispute or point to the key evidence in support of the applicant’s entitlement to the treatment plans. I note that paragraph 15 of the CCRO requires written submissions for this hearing and paragraph 20 of the CCRO requires that submissions must make specific reference to the evidence.
The applicant has not established her entitlement to the treatment plans by filing the Supplemental Document Brief with the Tribunal. In a hearing in written format, the adjudicator does not have the opportunity to hear the applicant’s arguments and ask the applicant to point to the relevant evidence. Therefore, written submissions identifying the supporting evidence are necessary both for the Tribunal, and for the respondent to fully argue its case.
11From these two quotations, I can make several observations about the adjudicator’s chain of reasoning. First, as noted at paragraph 7, the adjudicator was aware of the original document brief from April 2024. Therefore, despite the lack of a detailed analysis of its contents (such as the description provided for the supplementary document brief), it is clear that the adjudicator was aware of this brief. Second, the focus of the adjudicator’s dismissal of the treatment plans was the lack of submissions, not a lack of evidence. Third, the reasons for this focus were explained at length, namely, the absence of submissions meant the Tribunal was not directed to the “key evidence” needed to support the treatment plans, nor was the respondent able to “fully argue its case”.
12Taken together, I do not find the applicant has established that the Tribunal erred in its assessment of her case, nor has she shown how the process was procedurally unfair. Both document briefs were recognized by the adjudicator, and she explained that briefs alone (with no accompanying submissions) are insufficient to establish entitlement to medical benefits under the Schedule.
13The applicant may claim that the adjudicator had an obligation to assess the merits of her evidence, even without submissions. The onus is on the applicant to demonstrate that she is entitled to a reconsideration. Therefore, without any legal authorities presented to support this position (or to show that the adjudicator’s approach was incorrect or unfair), I find the applicant has not made out a grounds for reconsideration on this basis.
14Finally, the applicant points to award particulars that were provided with the original document brief. Though the adjudicator did not reference these particulars in the decision, I do not find the applicant has shown how this oversight merits reconsideration. Regardless of the adjudicator’s handling of this part of the claim, there can be no award granted unless there are benefits found to have been unreasonably withheld or delayed. With no benefits owing, there is no basis for an award.
CONCLUSION & ORDER
15The applicant’s request for reconsideration is dismissed.
Craig Mazerolle
Vice-Chair
Tribunals Ontario – Licence Appeal Tribunal
Released: October 29, 2025