RECONSIDERATION DECISION
Before: Craig Mazerolle, Vice-Chair
Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number: 22-005800/AABS
Case Name: Milton Robalino v. TD General Insurance Company
Written Submissions by:
For the Applicant: Neha Kohli, Paralegal
For the Respondent: Nicole De Bartolo, Counsel
OVERVIEW
1On March 27, 2025, the applicant requested reconsideration of the Tribunal’s amended decision released March 7, 2025 (“decision”).
2Following a written hearing, the Tribunal released the decision. Stemming from an automobile accident on May 3, 2021, and a request for accident benefits made pursuant to the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule – Effective September 1, 2010 (including amendments effective June 1, 2016) (the “Schedule”), the Tribunal found the applicant had not established removal from the Minor Injury Guideline (“MIG”). One of the grounds put forward by the applicant for removal from the MIG was an alleged psychological impairment. Briefly, the adjudicator concluded that the applicant’s evidence was not persuasive, and he instead found the respondent’s evidence to be “more thorough and compelling” (at paragraph 25). The Tribunal then concluded that the two treatment plans in dispute were not payable, and the applicant was not entitled to an award or 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(c) in his request for reconsideration. He is asking the Tribunal to find that the disputed treatment plans are reasonable and necessary. The applicant also appears to be asking the Tribunal to find that his alleged psychological impairment merits removal from the MIG.
5The respondent opposes the applicant’s request for reconsideration. It contends that this request is an attempt to relitigate the case made during the written hearing.
RESULT
6The applicant’s request for reconsideration is dismissed.
ANALYSIS
7I find the applicant has not established any grounds for reconsideration.
8Once again, the sole criteria listed on the applicant’s request for reconsideration form is Rule 18.2(c). To find that a party has met the criteria under Rule 18.2(c), the requesting party must establish three elements:
There is “evidence that was not before the Tribunal when rendering its decision”;
This evidence “could not have been obtained previously by the party now seeking to introduce it”; and,
This evidence “would likely have affected the result”.
9In support of his request, the applicant highlights the following finding made at paragraph 18 of the decision: “I find that the applicant has not provided me with persuasive evidence to demonstrate that their alleged psychological impairments justify removal from the MIG.” According to the applicant, his reconsideration submissions and evidence together provide a sufficient basis to “demonstrate the psychological impairments justify removal from the MIG.” The applicant then summarizes certain pieces of medical evidence that detail his post-accident treatment. The applicant also cites Scarlett v. Belair Insurance, 2015 ONSC 3635 and Janaratharajan v Aviva Insurance Canada, 2021 CanLII 76646 (ON LAT).
10Aside from the fact that he has not indicated what, if any, of this evidence is “evidence that was not before the Tribunal when rendering its decision”, I find the applicant is effectively asking for re-litigation of arguments and evidence presented at first instance.
11The 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 a decision falls into one of the categories in Rule 18.2.
12In the present case, I find the applicant has not shown how any of the criteria under Rule 18.2 have been met. Put another way, even if I expand my analysis beyond Rule 18.2(c), the applicant’s arguments do not identify any procedural or jurisdictional issues, nor does he highlight any alleged legal or factual error in the decision. Instead, his reconsideration request appears to be an attempt to re-litigate one of the MIG grounds presented and denied during the written hearing. Re-litigation is not the purpose of the reconsideration process.
13I do note that one of the two pieces of medical evidence presented by the applicant in his request is an expanded version of a record that was included with his written hearing submissions. Specifically, the clinical notes and records of Dr. Ashfaq Saleem that were appended to his written hearing submissions went from 2021 to 2023, while the package of these notes included with his reconsideration request now goes up to 2024. Even if this updated set of records is “evidence that was not before the Tribunal when rendering its decision”, there is no explanation for why these updated notes “could not have been obtained previously by the party now seeking to introduce it”. There is also no indication of why these updated notes “would likely have affected the result” in the decision. All three elements are necessary to engage Rule 18.2(c).
14I would also note that the applicant does not indicate why the cases presented in his reconsideration submissions help to establish any of the criteria under Rule 18.2.
15Taken together, I find the applicant has not established any grounds for reconsideration. As such, the applicant’s reconsideration request is dismissed.
CONCLUSION & ORDER
16The applicant’s request for reconsideration is dismissed.
Craig Mazerolle
Vice-Chair
Tribunals Ontario – Licence Appeal Tribunal
Released: May 9, 2025