Singh v. Wawanesa Mutual Insurance Company, 2025 CanLII 126035

RECONSIDERATION DECISION

Before: Craig Mazerolle, Vice-Chair

Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number: 24-013129/AABS

Case Name: Ronald Singh v. Wawanesa Mutual Insurance Company

Written Submissions by:

For the Applicant: Ramendeep Minhas, Counsel

For the Respondent: Sean Chambers, Counsel

OVERVIEW

1On October 7, 2025, the applicant requested reconsideration of the Tribunal’s decision released September 17, 2025 (“decision”).

2Stemming from an accident on November 5, 2020 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 videoconference hearing. In the decision, the panel found the applicant was not catastrophically impaired, nor was he entitled to the medical benefits, award, and interest in dispute. Briefly, the panel concluded that the applicant did not establish that he was catastrophically impaired under Criteria 6, 7, or 8.

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 his request. The applicant is asking for an order to either reverse the decision, or, in the alternative, to set up a new hearing.

5The respondent asks the Tribunal to dismiss the applicant’s request.

RESULT

6The applicant’s request for reconsideration is dismissed.

ANALYSIS

7The 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.

Criterion 6

8Starting under Criterion 6, the applicant raises two arguments to support his request for reconsideration. First, he claims the panel erred by assigning little weight to Dr. Basile’s neurological reports, a conclusion that allegedly shows they ignored objective evidence of radiculopathy. This objective evidence included an EMG test from October 1, 2021. Second, the applicant alleges the panel overlooked “pages of mental health evidence”. Specifically, he claims the panel erred at paragraph 49 of the decision when they disregarded Dr. Basile’s proposed 14% whole person impairment (“WPI”) rating for mental status impairment due to there being “no compelling medical evidence”.

9I do not accept either of these arguments. Starting with Dr. Basile’s evidence, I find the panel provided a detailed analysis for why they placed little weight on this expert’s evidence, and they also discussed the EMG test that he is now highlighting as evidence to support the existence of radiculopathy. This evidence was assessed at length at paragraphs 25 – 31 of the decision. Disagreement alone is not sufficient to engage the reconsideration process. Rather, a party must show how a finding constituted a factual or legal error, as well as how this error likely impacted the outcome of the decision. The applicant has not met his onus with this argument.

10Similarly, I find the dispute over the 14% mental status impairment rating is another disagreement with a factual finding. Though the panel made a general comment at paragraph 49 about how they did not accept several proposed ratings due to there being “no compelling medical evidence”, they detailed their specific findings about the mental status impairment rating at paragraph 50:

The Guides define a “mental impairment” as any mental or psychological disorder, such as mental retardation, organic brain syndrome, emotional or mental illness, and specific learning disabilities. During his assessment, Dr. Basile states that the applicant’s mental complaints described features of depression and anxiety and the applicant would be following up with a psychiatrist in this regard. We do not find that Dr. Basile’s observations without further reasons warrant a rating for mental status impairment.

11Therefore, despite the comment at paragraph 49 about there being “no compelling medical evidence”, it is clear from paragraph 50 that the panel’s main issue with Dr. Basile’s proposed mental status impairment rating was the limited justification he provided for this finding. The applicant has not established an error with this part of the panel’s analysis, so I find he has not established any grounds for reconsideration involving Criterion 6.

Criterion 7

12Turning to Criterion 7, the applicant raises two arguments to support this part of his reconsideration request. First, the applicant claims the panel erred “by rejecting Dr. Hasan’s report… by stating that same did not account for the Applicant’s mother’s murder.” According to the applicant, this fact was detailed at several points in Dr. Hasan’s report. Then, the applicant submits that the panel both erred and committed a breach of procedural fairness by not accepting the opinion of Dr. Williams. Specifically, the applicant takes issue with how the panel dismissed her opinion based solely on the fact that Dr. Williams did not testify.

13I do not accept these arguments. First, even if I accepted that the Tribunal erred in its handling of Dr. Hasan’s report, the applicant has not demonstrated how correcting this alleged error would likely impact the outcome of the decision. As the panel noted at paragraph 59, even if they had accepted Dr. Hasan’s 20% mental and behavioural WPI rating, the applicant would have still missed the 55% threshold needed to be deemed catastrophically impaired under Criterion 7:

In any event, we note that even if we accept Dr. Hasan’s mental and behavioural rating of 20% WPI, and combine it with the total physical WPI found above (25%), this would result in a combined physical and psychological WPI of 40% which is below the 55% WPI threshold.

14To engage Rule 18.2(b), a requesting party must not only show there is an error, but they must also show that this error would likely have impacted the outcome of the decision. By not addressing this part of the panel’s reasoning under Criterion 7, I find this ground for reconsideration cannot succeed.

15In a related vein, I find the applicant’s arguments about Dr. Williams’ evidence are unfounded. Not only was Dr. Williams’ WPI rating for this area lower than the rating assigned by Dr. Hasan (i.e., 15% vs. 20%, respectively), but—according to paragraph 56 of the decision—Dr. Williams’s evidence was tendered by the respondent to support its own case. The applicant has not provided an explanation to show how her right to procedural fairness was breached by the panel’s choice not to consider a lower rating from the opposing party. This lower rating also engages the same issue with the 20% WPI rating above, i.e., there is no indication that correcting this error would likely have impacted the outcome.

Criterion 8

16For this third and final criterion, the applicant mainly alleges that the panel erred in its assessment of the impairment ratings for the domains of activities of daily living and social functioning. Briefly, the applicant claims the panel did not properly apply the standards set out in the American Medical Association’s Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment, 4th edition, 1993 (“AMA Guides”) for assessing marked impairments in these two domains.

17I find the applicant is asking the Tribunal to re-weigh evidence from the hearing. The panel provided detailed assessments for these two domains at paragraphs 74 – 90 of the decision, and their assessments included references to the standards set out in the AMA Guides. Though the applicant may disagree with the panel’s findings, disagreement alone is not sufficient to trigger Rule 18.2.

18The applicant also alleges that the panel erred in law when they decided not to consider any rating for the domain of adaptation. I do not agree. To be deemed catastrophically impaired under Criterion 8, an applicant must show they have sustained marked impairments in three of the four domains outlined in the AMA Guides. The applicant has not explained how the panel erred by concluding that a finding that he did not meet this threshold in two of the four domains would still require them to assign a rating to this third domain.

19Finally, I note that the applicant’s Criterion 7 argument about the handling of Dr. Williams’ evidence was also put forward to support his position for Criterion 8. As detailed above, I do not find the applicant has demonstrated an error in fact or law, nor a breach of procedural fairness, with the panel’s handling of this evidence.

20In a brief, closing section of his submissions, the applicant alleges the panel “erred in law and fact and/or mixed law and fact by not approving the denied treatment plans”. The only support he provides for this position is a reference to 17-003735 v Certas Direct Insurance Company, 2018 CanLII 39445 (ON LAT), at paragraph 21:

It is important to bear in mind that the applicant only needs prove on a balance of probabilities that it is reasonable and necessary that she explore the possibility that she suffers from a psychological impairment. The applicant does not need to prove that she in fact suffers from a psychological impairment…

21According to the applicant, the panel’s decision “directly goes against” this case.

22Aside from the fact that Tribunal case law is not binding, the applicant has not directed my attention to any specific errors in the panel’s assessment of the treatment plans. The applicant has the onus to show that one of these criteria has been met, and I find this quotation alone is insufficient to meet any of the criteria under Rule 18.2.

CONCLUSION & ORDER

23The applicant’s request for reconsideration is dismissed.

Craig Mazerolle

Vice-Chair