Licence Appeal Tribunal
RECONSIDERATION DECISION
Before: Craig Mazerolle, Vice-Chair
Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number: 24-000408/AABS
Case Name: Kailasapillai v. Wawanesa Mutual Insurance Company
Written Submissions by:
For the Applicant: Rajanayagam Kailasapillai, Applicant
For the Respondent: No submissions requested
OVERVIEW
1The applicant filed a request for reconsideration on October 9, 2025 in respect of the Tribunal’s decision released on September 19, 2025 (“decision”).
2Following a written hearing, the Tribunal dismissed the applicant’s application. Briefly, the adjudicator found that the applicant had not established accident-related impairments that warranted removal from the Minor Injury Guideline. The adjudicator further concluded that the applicant was not entitled to the disputed treatment plans, an award, or interest.
3The applicant was represented by counsel during the written hearing. He has informed the Tribunal that he is proceeding with his reconsideration request without a representative.
4The 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.
5The applicant is relying on Rule 18.2(b) and Rule 18.2(c) to support his request for reconsideration.
6No submissions were sought from the respondent.
RESULT
7The applicant’s request for reconsideration is dismissed.
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 requesting party—in this case, the applicant—must show how or why the decision falls into one of the categories in Rule 18.2. With this framework in mind, I find the applicant has not established grounds for reconsideration.
9Aside from the e-mail serving this form (which asks the Tribunal to “consider my case favorably”), the applicant’s reconsideration request is limited to a copy of the request form itself. On this form, the applicant provides submissions in support of his request. Briefly, the applicant states that he is an elderly man, and he believes that the Tribunal “did not listen” to his case “properly”. Specifically, he argues that an adjudicator “did not let [his former representative]… speak or present my case properly.” According to the applicant, he was “listening” to the proceeding take place “over the phone”. He also notes that his wife has sustained injuries as well, and he has spent a significant amount of money for his own treatment in India and Sri Lanka.
10I note that the applicant also mentioned details about a settlement offer. However, as settlement discussions are privileged, I have not considered this comment in my assessment of his reconsideration request.
11I am sympathetic to the applicant, especially as he is now attempting to navigate this process without the assistance of legal representation. I am also mindful of the financial and medical challenges noted in his reconsideration submissions. However, it is still up to the applicant to show that his request meets the test for reconsideration. I find he has not met this onus.
12First, to be successful under Rule 18.2(c), the requesting party must present evidence that was “not before the Tribunal when rendering its decision”. No documents were attached to the applicant’s reconsideration form. Without any new evidence, I find the applicant cannot meet the test for reconsideration under Rule 18.2(c).
13Then, for his arguments about Rule 18.2(b), I find the applicant has not identified any error that would likely have impacted the result of the proceeding. The applicant takes issue with how the hearing was conducted, claiming that his counsel was unable to “present my case properly”. However, aside from a lack of specific details about how the Tribunal impeded his counsel’s presentation, I note that the applicant appears to be taking issue with the case conference, not the written hearing.
14Once again, the parties’ hearing took place via written submissions. Yet, the applicant claims that he listened to his counsel and the adjudicator discussing his case “over the phone”. The only part of the proceeding before the Tribunal that involved conversations over the phone was the case conference held on June 3, 2024. Rule 18.1 limits reconsideration to decisions that finally dispose of an appeal, and the order released following this case conference did not finally dispose of the applicant’s appeal before the Tribunal. The applicant’s appeal was not finally disposed until the decision was released following the written hearing.
15Taken together, the applicant has not established grounds for reconsideration under Rule 18.2. As such, his request for reconsideration is dismissed.
CONCLUSION & ORDER
16The applicant’s request for reconsideration is dismissed.
Craig Mazerolle
Vice-Chair
Tribunals Ontario – Licence Appeal Tribunal
Released: October 28, 2025