RECONSIDERATION DECISION
Before:
Craig Mazerolle, Vice-Chair
Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number:
22-008623/AABS
Case Name:
Ali Bagherian v. Aviva Insurance Company of Canada
Written Submissions by:
For the Applicant:
Ali Bagherian, Applicant
For the Respondent:
Nathan M. Fabiano, Counsel
OVERVIEW
1On November 28, 2024, the applicant requested reconsideration of the Tribunal’s decision released October 9, 2024 (“decision”).
2Stemming from an automobile accident on July 19, 2014, the applicant sought accident benefits pursuant to the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule – Effective September 1, 2010 (the “Schedule”). Following a hearing conducted by way of written submissions, I found the applicant was not entitled to a treatment plan for dental services. I also found he was not entitled to interest. Briefly, since the applicant did not provide written submissions to the Tribunal in support of the treatment plan and interest in dispute, I found he did not meet his evidentiary burden.
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(b) and Rule 18.2(c) in his request for reconsideration. He is asking for “the operations of the whole Tribunal” to be “revisited”.
5The respondent opposes the applicant’s request for reconsideration. The respondent also filed a Notice of Motion on January 22, 2025, seeking permission to file a sur-reply. The applicant opposed the motion, but considering I am denying the reconsideration request, this motion is dismissed as moot.
RESULT
6The applicant’s request for reconsideration is dismissed.
7The respondent’s motion (filed January 22, 2025) is dismissed.
ANALYSIS
8I find the applicant has not established grounds for reconsideration of the decision under Rule 18.2. As such, the applicant’s request for reconsideration is dismissed.
9The 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.
10The applicant relies on three main arguments to support his request for reconsideration.
11First, the applicant claims the Tribunal “made an error of both law and fact”, because the respondent’s dental assessor, Dr. Ouanounou, was not “present in the hearing”. Specifically, since he had planned to summons and question this assessor, the applicant contended that this procedure was unjust.
12As noted above, the parties’ hearing proceeded by way of written submissions, a procedural decision made during the case conference. I understand from reviewing the case conference report and order (released April 12, 2023) that the applicant disagreed with this hearing format at the time. However, both parties were provided the opportunity to express their positions on this procedural dispute, and the case conference adjudicator ordered the dispute to proceed to a written hearing. I see no unfairness arising from this order, nor do I find the applicant has established how any of the criteria under Rule 18.2 have been engaged as a result of his inability to summons Dr. Ouanounou.
13Second, the applicant submits an ongoing “medical matter” was the reason he could not deliver his “pleadings” and attend the hearing. In support of this position, the applicant provided a letter from a doctor at a walk-in clinic that stated: “Due to medical reasons, patient should have a 6 month recess from court processes effective immediately.” The applicant’s written hearing submissions were due on December 20, 2023. The doctor’s letter is dated February 25, 2024.
14I find the applicant has not shown how this letter establishes any of the criteria under Rule 18.2. The “6 month recess” requested in the doctor’s letter did not start until several months after the applicant’s submissions were due. In fact, the written hearing itself took place on January 19, 2024—over a month before this letter was issued.
15Third, the applicant appears to allege that the respondent’s “late response… in providing financial coverage” led to an infection. In support of this ground, the applicant attached 17 pages of medical records and invoices ranging in dates from 2014 to 2021. I was not provided with a compelling explanation for how these records (and the allegation involving the infection) engage any of the criteria under Rule 18.2.
16In reply, the applicant provided what he referred to as an “Affidavit”. In this document, the applicant states that since “he is the only one who knows what happened and how the small cracks led to deteriorated teeth”, his version of events is the most important evidence in this dispute. As such, the interests of justice require the Tribunal to consider his version of events. The applicant then attached several documents to the reply, including, in part, medical records, photographs, and a denial letter from the respondent.
17While I recognize that the applicant wishes to communicate his perspective and is seeking to do so in both his request for reconsideration and his reply, I find the applicant’s arguments in the “Affidavit” do not establish how any of the criteria under Rule 18.2 are engaged in this case. Again, the parties were provided a means to dispute the hearing format during the case conference, and I further find the applicant has not shown how proceeding with a written hearing resulted in procedural unfairness for the applicant.
18For these reasons, I find the applicant has not established grounds for reconsideration of the decision under Rule 18.2. As such, the applicant’s request for reconsideration is dismissed.
CONCLUSION & ORDER
19The applicant’s request for reconsideration is dismissed.
20The respondent’s motion (filed January 22, 2025) is dismissed.
Craig Mazerolle
Vice-Chair
Tribunals Ontario – Licence Appeal Tribunal
Released: March 18, 2025