Licence Appeal Tribunal
RECONSIDERATION DECISION
Before: E. Louise Logan, Vice-Chair
Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number: 24-000733/AABS-R
Case Name: Thivakar Saravanamuthu v. Intact Insurance Company
Written Submissions by:
For the Applicant: Jono Schneider, Counsel
For the Respondent: Theomarcus Giannou, Counsel
OVERVIEW
1The applicant filed a request for reconsideration on August 22, 2025, in respect of the Tribunal’s decision also dated August 22, 2025 (“decision”).
2The 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.
3The applicant seeks reconsideration pursuant to Rule 18.2(a) and (b). The applicant seeks an order setting aside the decision and ordering a rehearing.
4The respondent submits that the request for reconsideration should be denied.
RESULT
5The applicant’s request for reconsideration is granted.
6Pursuant to Rule 18.4, the outcome of the reconsideration is that the decision is confirmed.
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.
Rule 18.2(b) – Error Law or Fact
8I find that the applicant has established grounds for reconsideration pursuant to Rule 18.2(b). I find that the Tribunal erred when it determined that the applicant did not file any evidence in support of his position. I further find that the error was such that it would likely have changed the outcome of the decision.
9The applicant submits that the Tribunal erred when it found that he did not file any evidence for the initial hearing. The evidence before me establishes that the applicant filed a document brief with the Tribunal on June 6, 2024 and that the document brief was also served on the respondent the same day. This was also the same date as the case conference in this matter, and before the Case Conference Report and Order (CCRO) was released on June 13, 2024. The CCRO set out the deadlines for filing and serving the parties’ submissions and evidence. The CCRO provided that the applicant’s submissions and evidence were due 30 days prior to the scheduled hearing. The Notice of Hearing dated June 27, 2024, indicates that the written hearing was scheduled for March 7, 2025.
10The respondent submits that the applicant decided not to alert the respondent or the Tribunal that the document brief filed on June 6, 2024, before the written hearing date was provided, was the entirety of his evidence for the hearing. The respondent highlights that on January 27, 2025, the Tribunal sent reminder emails to the parties that their filing due dates were approaching. The Tribunal also emailed counsel for the applicant on February 21, 2025, indicating that the Tribunal had not received the applicant’s written submissions. The respondent further notes that it served its written submissions on the applicant on February 21, 2025, and that its submissions indicated that the applicant failed to meet his onus and had not provided any written submissions. The applicant did not file a reply submission. The respondent submits that the applicant had ample opportunity to address the lack of written submissions but chose not to do so. It also submits that at no time before the decision was rendered did the applicant correspond with the Tribunal, or the respondent, about his evidence for the hearing.
11In my view, it is understandable that the initial hearing adjudicator may have understood that the document brief filed on June 6, 2024 was related to the case conference, rather than the written hearing for which notice had not yet been provided. The applicant’s document brief was filed the same day as the case conference, the applicant did not file a case conference summary despite being required to do so by Rule 20.4, and the applicant did not file submissions for the written hearing or otherwise correspond with the Tribunal or respondent about his document brief. Nonetheless, I find that the applicant’s 1008 page document brief was filed in keeping with the deadlines set out in the CCRO. As noted above, it was filed on June 6, 2024, which is more than 30 days before the hearing on March 7, 2025.
12Therefore, the Tribunal erred in fact when it indicated in the decision that no evidence had been filed the by the applicant for the hearing.
13I further find that the factual error that there was no evidence filed by the applicant is one that would likely have changed the outcome of the decision.
14In reaching this conclusion, I have considered the respondent’s reconsideration submission that even if the Tribunal had considered the applicant’s document brief, the result would have been the same. The respondent asserts that there is a material difference between a document brief and submissions. The document brief is a compilation of documents that does not present arguments. The respondent points to the CCRO which indicates that submissions must make specific reference to the evidence and authorities by page and tab number, and the hearing adjudicator has the discretion to determine whether to consider submissions that do not comply with the Tribunal’s filing requirement.
15The respondent submits that the applicant’s document brief does not meet the formatting requirements to be classified as submissions, and there aren’t any specific references to the evidence. Even if the Tribunal had considered the document brief, there is still an absence of accompanying submissions. The respondent relies on Chaudry v. Intact Insurance Company, 2025 CanLII 13564 (ON LAT) in support of its position that it is not appropriate for the trier of fact to review pages of records to make a party’s case for them.
16In my view, the respondent’s submissions with respect to the applicant’s lack of submissions are relevant to the outcome of the reconsideration, pursuant to Rule 18.4, rather than the test for granting a reconsideration under Rule 18.2(b).
17As set out above, the test in Rule 18.2(b) is that the error of law or fact is such that the Tribunal would likely have reached a different result had the error not been made. The test is not whether the Tribunal would actually have reached a different result. That is a question left for Rule 18.4, which provides that upon reconsidering a decision, the Tribunal may dismiss the request, or after providing the 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.
18In other words, if a request for reconsideration is granted pursuant to Rule 18.2(b), the focus then shifts to the outcome of the reconsideration pursuant to Rule 18.4. Specifically, whether the decision is confirmed, varied or cancelled, or a rehearing ordered.
19In this case, the Tribunal indicated in the decision that the applicant did not file evidence. I have found that the applicant did submit a document brief in compliance with the CCRO. In my view, the Tribunal’s error of fact is such that the Tribunal would likely have reached a different result had the error not been made. I make this finding because a factual error over whether evidence has been filed is fundamental to the Tribunal’s consideration of a party’s case.
20The applicant’s request for reconsideration is granted pursuant to Rule 18.2(b). As the applicant’s request is granted pursuant to Rule 18.2(b), I do not need to consider the arguments pursuant to Rule 18.2(a).
21I will now turn to the question of the outcome of the reconsideration pursuant to Rule 18.4.
Rule 18.4 – Outcome of the Reconsideration
22I am confirming the Tribunal’s decision that the applicant is not entitled to the benefits in dispute.
23The issues in dispute at the initial hearing were:
i. Is the applicant entitled to an income replacement benefit in the amount of $400.00 per week from August 8, 2022 to October 18, 2022?
ii. Is the applicant entitled to $87.19 ($3,921.20 less $3,834.01 approved) for physiotherapy services, proposed by Aqua Wellness in a treatment plan/OCF-18 (“plan”) submitted November 30, 2022?
iii. Is the applicant entitled to $87.19 ($3,831.20 less $3,744.01 approved) for physiotherapy services, proposed by Aqua Wellness in a plan submitted January 6, 2023?
iv. Is the applicant entitled to $87.19 ($3,711.20 less $3,624.01 approved) for physiotherapy services, proposed by Aqua Wellness in a plan submitted February 24, 2023?
v. Is the applicant entitled to $87.19 ($3,501.20 less $3,414.01 approved) for physiotherapy services, proposed by Aqua Wellness in a plan submitted January 6, 2023?
vi. Is the applicant entitled to $87.19 ($3,411.20 less $3,414.01 approved) for a psychological assessment, proposed by Aqua Wellness in a plan submitted April 28, 2023?
vii. Is the applicant entitled to $619.80 ($2,460.00 less $1,840.20 approved) for a psychological assessment, proposed by Hydro Health Evaluations in a plan submitted September 13, 2023?
viii. Is the applicant entitled to $1,102.39 ($1,722.80 less $620.41 approved) for physiotherapy services, proposed by Aqua Wellness in a plan submitted October 31, 2023?
ix. Is the applicant entitled to $487.80 ($2,912.00 less $2,424.20 approved) for a psychological assessment, proposed by Hydro Health Evaluations in a plan submitted September 13, 2023?
x. Is the applicant entitled to $40.68 for a chronic pain assessment, proposed by Mark Goldstein MPC in a plan submitted January 19, 2024?
xi. Is the respondent liable to pay an award under s. 10 of Reg. 664 because it unreasonably withheld or delayed payments to the applicant?
xii. Is the applicant entitled to interest on any overdue payment of benefits?
24Of note, the applicant did not make written submissions for the initial hearing, as only the document brief referenced above was filed.
25On reconsideration the applicant submits that even if submissions were not filed for the initial hearing, the Tribunal is still required to review the documentary record. He submits that the Tribunal’s mandate requires it to assess entitlement based on the evidence, not on whether submissions are filed. The applicant’s submission is that the Tribunal misapplied the Schedule by not conducting an entitlement analysis, as the Tribunal’s decision must be reasonable and responsive to the evidence. The applicant does not cite legal authority for this position.
26While not binding on me, I agree with the analysis in Chaudry cited by the respondent. It is not appropriate for the trier of fact to review the evidentiary record to make a party’s case for them. It is not the Tribunal’s task to make the case for the applicant by reviewing documentary evidence in order to determine whether any of that evidence supports the applicant’s position. Doing so would be procedurally unfair to the respondent, as it would not have had any notice of such arguments. In support of this principle, I further note that in Dooman v. TD Insurance Co., 2025 ONSC 184 at para. 50, the Divisional Court determined that the Tribunal reasonably found that “it is inappropriate for adjudicators to go through a party’s evidence, as suggested by the applicant, to make their case for them.”
27In this case, the applicant did not make any submissions in support of entitlement to the benefits in dispute at the initial hearing. In the absence of such submissions, I find the applicant has not met his evidentiary burden to establish, on a balance of probabilities, that he is entitled to the disputed benefits.
28Further, I find that while the applicant made brief submissions in support of entitlement in his reconsideration submissions, these are new arguments on reconsideration that were not made for the initial hearing. He also indicates on reconsideration that his document brief contained particulars with respect to the section 10 award. However, the particulars are not submissions. Reconsideration is not an opportunity to advance new arguments not made at the initial hearing. Rather, parties are expected to put their best foot forward during the initial hearing. Unfortunately, in this case, submissions in support of the applicant’s entitlement were not made for the initial hearing.
29Therefore, pursuant to Rule 18.4, I am confirming the Tribunal’s decision that the applicant is not entitled to the benefits in dispute, as set out in the initial decision. The applicant did not meet his evidentiary burden.
CONCLUSION & ORDER
30The applicant’s request for reconsideration, pursuant to Rule 18.2(b), is granted.
31Pursuant to Rule 18.4, the outcome of the reconsideration is that the decision is confirmed.
E. Louise Logan Vice-Chair
Released: October 30, 2025