RECONSIDERATION DECISION
Before: Craig Mazerolle, Vice-Chair
Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number: 24-015797/AABS
Case Name: Sarah Parker-Berube v. Certas Home and Auto Insurance Company
Written Submissions by:
For the Applicant: Sarah Parker-Berube, Applicant
For the Respondent: Harley Kruger, Counsel
OVERVIEW
1On September 15, 2025, the applicant requested reconsideration of the Tribunal’s preliminary issue decision dated July 31, 2025 (“decision”).
2Stemming from an incident on May 18, 2018 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 participated in a written hearing. In the decision, the adjudicator found the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction in this matter under s. 280 of the Insurance Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. I.8. As such, she dismissed the applicant’s application.
3The adjudicator did not issue a ruling on the other preliminary issues in dispute, including whether the applicant was involved in an “accident”.
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 under Rule 18.2 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 relies on Rule 18.2(b) to support her request for reconsideration.
6The respondent asks the Tribunal to dismiss the applicant’s request.
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 requestor—in this case, the applicant—must show how or why the decision falls into one of the categories in Rule 18.2.
9I am sympathetic to the applicant, especially as she is attempting to navigate this process without the assistance of legal representation. I am also mindful of the accessibility issues she mentioned in her e-mails to the Tribunal. However, it is still up to her to show that her request meets the test for reconsideration under Rule 18.2. I find she has not met this test.
10In the decision, the adjudicator concluded that there were no accident benefits in dispute before the Tribunal. Since s. 280(1) of the Insurance Act provides the Tribunal with the jurisdiction to resolve disputes related to one’s entitlement to (or amount of) accident benefits, the adjudicator concluded she had no jurisdiction in this matter if no benefits were in dispute.
11In addition to her Request for Reconsideration form, the applicant’s reconsideration submissions comprise of a copy of an accessible parking permit and two photographs of the decision (with commentary in the margins). When this commentary is read alongside the e-mails she sent to the Tribunal with her reconsideration materials, it appears the applicant’s main concern with the decision is that her former counsel did send documents to the respondent asking for accident benefits. The applicant then claims that the respondent “refused to work with” her former counsel.
12The respondent argues that the applicant has not provided any evidence to show that the Tribunal made an error that would trigger Rule 18.2(b).
13I recognize that the applicant believes the Tribunal was incorrect in finding there was no benefits in dispute, an error that she appears to attribute to the respondent allegedly ignoring her former’s counsel’s correspondence. However, despite this firm belief, the applicant has not pointed or directed me to evidence to show the adjudicator erred in finding that no accident benefits were in dispute. The applicant has the onus to show that an error took place in the decision, and I find her arguments alone do not satisfy this burden, as submissions alone are not evidence.
14There is also no explanation provided to describe how the accessible parking permit helps the applicant to meet her onus on reconsideration.
15Further, while the applicant selected Rule 18.2(b) on her Request for Reconsideration form, I note that the other two criteria under Rule 18.2 do not appear to be engaged in this case. Briefly, the applicant has not shown that the Tribunal acted outside its jurisdiction or committed a material breach of procedural fairness, nor has she presented any new evidence with an explanation of how it meets the test under Rule 18.2(c).
16Taken together, the applicant has not established a ground for reconsideration under Rule 18.2. Her request for reconsideration is dismissed.
CONCLUSION & ORDER
17The applicant’s request for reconsideration is dismissed.
Craig Mazerolle
Vice-Chair
Released: November 13, 2025