AMENDED RECONSIDERATION DECISION
Before: Tyler Moore
Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number: 23-009042/AABS
Case Name: Edward Rutledge (A minor by their litigation guardian Tracy C Cole) v. Traders General Insurance Company
Written Submissions by:
For the Applicant:
Imtiaz Hosein, Counsel
Christos P Kakaletris, Counsel Articling Student
For the Respondent: Frank Benedetto, Counsel
OVERVIEW
1On April 16, 2025, the applicant minor, as represented by his litigation guardian Tracey C. Cole (“applicant”), requested reconsideration of the Tribunal’s decision dated March 25, 2025 (“decision”), and on April 17, 2025, the respondent also requested reconsideration of the Tribunal’s decision.
2In this decision, the Tribunal dismissed the application and found that the applicant had not demonstrated entitlement to the substantive social rehab counseling, occupational therapy services, catastrophic determination assessment, disbursements, award, and interest in dispute. Neither party filed any written submissions, a motion to extend the submission deadlines, or a Notice of Withdrawal. The Tribunal also found that it was not in a position to make findings on the preliminary issues, because no submissions or evidence had been filed.
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 parties are seeking reconsideration pursuant to Rule 18.2(b) on the basis that the Tribunal made an error of fact or law such that the Tribunal would likely have reached a different result had the error not been made.
5The requests for reconsideration are on consent. The parties are seeking an order reversing the Tribunal’s decision to dismiss the application and thereby reinstating the application so that they have the opportunity to preserve their rights for future adjudication in the event that court approval of the parties’ agreement is not granted. The applicant is seeking a stay until the outcome of the court approval is finalized.
RESULT
6The parties’ request for reconsideration pursuant to Rule 18.2(b) is granted. Pursuant to Rule 18.4, the Tribunal’s decision is cancelled.
ANALYSIS
7The 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.
Did the Tribunal make an error of law or fact such that the Tribunal would likely have reached a different result had the error not been made?
8I find that the parties have established grounds for reconsideration under Rule 18.2(b).
9The applicant submits that an e-mail dated September 9, 2024 informing the Tribunal that settlement was awaiting court approval should have preserved his rights for future adjudication in the event that court approval is not granted. According to the applicant, submissions to the Tribunal were unnecessary because settlement had been reached, and he should not be expected to withdraw his application as court approval is required before the settlement could be finalized.
10The respondent submits that the parties ought to be able to proceed with adjudication at the Tribunal if the Court does not approve the settlement involving the minor applicant. The respondent also relies on the September 9, 2024 e-mail, and submits that the parties were of the view that a decision would not be made by the Tribunal. As a result, submissions were not provided.
11I find that the Tribunal’s decision considered the September 9, 2024 e-mail at paragraph [6]. Of note is that the e-mail references multiple related files and was not forwarded to the Tribunal to be included as part of this file until September 30, 2024. At paragraph [6] of the decision, the Tribunal indicated that “on September 30, 2024, the applicant replied to the Tribunal by e-mail indicating that there had been an agreement reached between the parties, for which the applicant was seeking court approval of the resolution. The applicant also indicated that he would be withdrawing the application in the future. No further correspondence has been received from either party.” At paragraph [9] of the decision, the Tribunal noted that “neither party has filed submissions, and there has been no motion made seeking to extend the initial submissions deadline.”
12I find that prior to the applicant’s reconsideration submissions, there was no request to stay the proceeding. Apart from the e-mail dated September 9, 2024, the Tribunal did not receive any correspondence from the parties from the date of the case conference on January 10, 2024 to the parties’ reconsideration request on April 16, 2025.
13The September 9, 2024 e-mail does not indicate when the parties filed an application with the Court for approval of the agreement, and the parties have not provided any updates with respect to the status of the Court’s decision. I find that there was no relief sought by either party leading up to the Tribunal’s decision and neither party submitted any substantive submissions. I also agree with the respondent that the parties could have been clearer in the September 9, 2024 e-mail about their request for relief.
14The parties have not pointed me to any error of law that was made in the Tribunal’s decision and have cited no authority in support of their request. I do acknowledge, however, that the parties agree on the substance of the reconsideration request: that the applicant is a minor, that the purported settlement is subject to Court approval, and that there are valid preliminary issues. As a result, I find that there was a misunderstanding of fact based on the September 9, 2024 e-mail, such that this constitutes grounds for reconsideration pursuant to Rule 18.2(b).
Rule 18.4 – Outcome of Reconsideration
15Rule 18.4 provides that upon reconsidering a decision of the Tribunal, the Tribunal may dismiss the request, or, after providing the responding parties with an opportunity to make submissions, confirm, vary or cancel the decision or order, or order a rehearing on all or part of the matter.
16Based on the submissions before me, I accept that there was a misunderstanding of fact based on the September 9, 2024 email. I find that in fairness to the parties, that the Tribunal’s decision should be cancelled so as not to prejudice the parties before their settlement is approved by the Court.
17Given that the parties have notified the Tribunal that an agreement has been reached pending approval by the Court such that a determination on the merits is not required, the parties are directed to notify the Tribunal if the settlement is not approved by the Court. In the interim, the Tribunal’s file will be closed without prejudice.
CONCLUSION & ORDER
18The applicant and respondent’s request for reconsideration pursuant to Rule 18.2(b) is granted.
19Pursuant to Rule 18.4, I cancel the Tribunal’s decision and order the following:
a. The parties are directed to notify the Tribunal if the settlement is not approved by the Court; and
b. the Tribunal’s file is to be closed without prejudice.
Tyler Moore Vice-Chair Tribunals Ontario – Licence Appeal Tribunal
Released: June 27, 2025