Licence Appeal Tribunal
RECONSIDERATION DECISION
Before: Craig Mazerolle, Vice-Chair
Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number: 23-013983/AABS
Case Name: Aisar Mohsen v. Co-operators General Insurance Company
Written Submissions by:
For the Applicant: Michael Adamek, Counsel
For the Respondent: Emily Schatzker, Counsel
OVERVIEW
1On October 14, 2025, the applicant requested reconsideration of the Tribunal’s decision released October 1, 2025 (“decision”).
2Stemming from an accident on June 19, 2020 and a request for benefits made pursuant to the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule – Effective September 1, 2010 (including amendments effective June 1, 2016) (the “Schedule”), the parties participated in a written hearing. In the decision, the Tribunal found the applicant remained within the Minor Injury Guideline (“MIG”), a finding that allowed it to conclude it was not necessary to conduct the reasonable and necessary assessment of the five disputed treatment plans. The Tribunal also dismissed the claims for an award and interest.
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 reconsideration request. The applicant is asking for an order finding she is removed from the MIG and entitled to the disputed issues. In the alternative, she asks the Tribunal to order a new hearing.
5The respondent asks the Tribunal to dismiss the applicant’s request.
RESULT
6The applicant’s request for reconsideration is granted.
7Pursuant to Rule 18.4, the decision is cancelled. The matter shall be reheard, based on the original written hearing submissions and evidence.
ANALYSIS
8The test for reconsideration under Rule 18.2 involves a high threshold, and the requesting party must show how or why the decision falls into one of the categories in Rule 18.2. 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.
9I find the applicant has established grounds for reconsideration, pursuant to Rule 18.2(b).
Rule 18.2(b) – Error of Fact or Law
10The applicant has shown that key evidence from her written submissions was not explicitly addressed in the decision. This error would likely have impacted the result, namely, the conclusion that the applicant remained within the MIG.
11The applicant submits that the Tribunal ignored evidence about her functional limitations, including evidence from her healthcare providers. Of note, she points to examples of functional limitations that were documented in several occupational therapy records, including an in-home assessment report prepared by her occupational therapist, Fathima Tuan-Kichil (dated May 6, 2022). According to the applicant, the lack of any reference to this evidence in the decision shows the adjudicator did not “consider essential facts in deciding the applicability of the MIG.”
12The respondent argues there is no obligation on a tribunal “to refer to every piece of evidence when providing reasons for its decision.” Moreover, the respondent submits that, while the decision “did not refer specifically to the comments” in Ms. Tuan-Kichil’s report (aside from an argument about the lack of interpretation at this assessment), it is clear the Tribunal weighed the evidentiary record as a whole. It also highlights how the Tribunal did not reference all its arguments and evidence either.
13I accept that adjudicators are not expected to address every piece of evidence presented by the parties. However, adjudicators must show they grappled with the key evidence and arguments presented during a hearing. The main way that adjudicators show they have met this obligation is through their reasons, as reasons show the thought process and evidentiary assessments that went into their conclusions.
14The applicant has shown that a key piece of evidence was not explicitly considered in the decision, i.e., there is no reference to the May 2022 in-home assessment report from Ms. Tuan-Kichil. This report was discussed at length in the applicant’s initial written submissions. For example, she highlighted the following findings from the report at paragraph 27:
One day, the physical testing lasted approximately 90 minutes at which point [the applicant’s] fatigue, pain, headaches, and dizziness prevented her from continuing. The assessor observed [the applicant] ambulate with effortful, laboured breathing, repositioning frequently, and use a pillow for support when seated. [The applicant] used towel bars for support when transferring between bathtub/shower. She relied on the counter next to her toilet for seated toilet transfers. [The applicant] displayed pain behaviours throughout the assessment.
15By not explicitly referencing this report in the decision, I find the Tribunal erred in its handling of the applicant’s case. This reconsideration request is not an attempt to have the Tribunal re-weigh evidence considered at first instance. Rather, the applicant is asking the Tribunal to show how it assessed this key evidence as part of the overall factual matrix.
16Considering one of the grounds the applicant put forward in support of her MIG position was chronic pain, I then find this error would likely have impacted the outcome. As the Tribunal noted at paragraph 19 of the decision: “… the existence of chronic pain in and of itself does not warrant removal from the MIG. Rather, the legal test is ‘chronic pain with a functional limitation.’” By not explicitly addressing evidence presented by the applicant to help establish this functional impairment, I find this error would likely have impacted the outcome.
17Turning to the respondent’s arguments, I do not find they challenge my conclusions. First, while I accept that adjudicators are not expected to address every minor piece of evidence included in a party’s submissions, it is clear from the applicant’s initial written submissions that Ms. Tuan-Kichil’s report was central to her case. Chronic pain was one of the grounds she put forward as a means for being removed from the MIG, so this evidence of her alleged functional limitations should have been explicitly discussed in the decision.
18Similarly, while the respondent may claim that it is clear the Tribunal considered the evidentiary record, this argument overlooks the role that reasons play in the adjudicative process. It is not enough for a decision-maker to issue an order; they must also explain how the order was made. By not rendering an explicit assessment of this key report, I find the Tribunal did not meet its obligation to explain its decision-making process.
19Then, aside from the fact that it conceded there was no explicit reference to the findings from the report, the respondent’s argument about how the Tribunal referenced its concerns about interpretation does not change my view of the reconsideration request. Specifically, the Tribunal discussed the respondent’s interpretation argument at paragraphs 17 and 18 of the decision (emphasis added):
I also reviewed the Occupational Therapy Progress report, authored by Casey Cadeau of Vitality Assessments Group dated December 10, 2020. The primary recommendation in that report was that the applicant would benefit from a heat pad and 12 OT sessions. There were also recommendations for chronic pain and psychological assessments, massage therapy and ongoing attendant care services.
The respondent submits that the OT Progress report should be given less weight, pointing out the meeting was done without the benefit of an Arabic interpreter. The respondent argues that without the benefit of translation, the OT has not been given a clear picture of the applicant’s concerns.
20It is clear from this quotation that the Tribunal was not referencing the May 2022 in-home assessment report, but rather an earlier report from December 2020.
21Finally, while the respondent may claim that the Tribunal also failed to reference all its submissions and evidence, I find this argument is immaterial to the question before me. The applicant had the onus to show her accident-related impairments merited removal from the MIG. Therefore, even if there was no reference at all in the decision to the respondent’s case, the outcome would have been the same—the applicant would have remained in the MIG, because she did not meet her onus at first instance.
22I conclude that the applicant has established grounds for reconsideration based on Rule 18.2(b). Based on this conclusion, I find I do not need to address the applicant’s other grounds for reconsideration.
Rule 18.4 – Cancelling the Decision and Rehearing the Matter
23I must now determine what the appropriate remedy is under Rule 18.4. Though the applicant’s primary request was for an order finding she is removed from the MIG and entitled to the issues in dispute, I find it is more appropriate to cancel the decision and send this matter to be reheard by a new adjudicator.
24By not explicitly assessing key evidence at first instance, the Tribunal will have to re-weigh the evidentiary record to see what role this report may play in assessing the applicant’s claim. I also note that, since there was no assessment of the treatment plans done at first instance, there are no findings that I could rely on as a basis for an order to vary (if I were to conclude that the applicant is removed from the MIG based on the in-home assessment report). Instead, I find a full rehearing of the matter is needed to ensure that these issues are decided in a fair and open manner.
25However, to protect the interest of efficiency for both sides, I will order the new adjudicator to conduct the rehearing based on the evidence and submissions from the written hearing.
CONCLUSION & ORDER
26The applicant’s request for reconsideration is granted.
27Pursuant to Rule 18.4, the decision is cancelled.
28A rehearing shall take place before a new adjudicator. The adjudicator shall review the existing record, i.e., the submissions and evidence from the written hearing.
29I am not seized.
Craig Mazerolle Vice-Chair
Released: December 3, 2025