Licence Appeal Tribunal
RECONSIDERATION DECISION
Before:
Melanie Malach
Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number:
23-008696/AABS
Case Name:
Stephane Okenge v. Certas Home and Auto Insurance Company
Written Submissions by:
For the Applicant:
Brenda Hollingsworth, Counsel
For the Respondent:
Michael Chadwick, Counsel
OVERVIEW
1On May 13, 2025, the respondent requested reconsideration of the Tribunal’s decision dated April 22, 2025 (“decision”).
2Stemming from an accident on October 23, 2022, the applicant sought benefits pursuant to the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule – Effective September 1, 2010 (including amendments effective June 1, 2016) (the “Schedule”). Following a written hearing, I found that the applicant is an insured person under the policy issued by the respondent to the applicant’s sister, Gisele Okenge (“sister”) and was principally dependent for care on his sister at the time of the accident.
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 criteria cited by the respondent in support of the reconsideration request is Rule 18.2(b).
RESULT
5The respondent’s request for reconsideration is dismissed.
ANALYSIS
6The 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.
Rule 18.2(b) – The Tribunal did not commit an error of law or fact
7I find that the respondent has not established grounds for reconsideration under Rule 18.2(b).
8The respondent submits that I made errors of law or fact which impacted my analysis. Specifically, the respondent submits that I erred by:
a. Failing to make a comparison between the ability of the applicant and the care provided by his sister as set out in Co-Operators v. TD, 2014 ONSC 1604 (“Co-Operators v. TD”); and
b. Finding that a physical or mental vulnerability is not generally required for a finding of dependency of care.
a. I did not err in my dependency analysis
9The respondent submits that I erred in the application of the law as set out in Co-Operators v. TD, as I did not undertake the required comparison between the ability of the applicant and the care provided by his sister. The respondent submits that if that comparison was made, it is clear that the applicant was not principally dependent on his sister or anyone else for care, but was self-sufficient and independent. The respondent submits that I provided little analysis of the applicant’s own abilities, and I did not provide a comparison between the care provided by his sister and the care he was able to provide independently for himself along with his ability to be self-sufficient. The respondent sets out at paragraph 15 of its reconsideration submissions the evidence that it claims I did not consider in my analysis of the applicant’s abilities.
10The applicant submits that I correctly applied the test in Co-Operators v. TD. He further submits that the respondent is rearguing its initial submissions that the applicant was independent and that his sister was not providing important care. The applicant states that when arguing that the sister was not providing care to the applicant, the respondent makes overbroad and conclusory statements about the evidence, much of which is irrelevant to the analysis. The applicant further states that the respondent mischaracterizes the relationship between the sister and the applicant as “minimal” and limited to “regular sibling updates”.
11I find that the respondent’s request for reconsideration is an attempt to re-argue its case, and that the respondent is asking the Tribunal to re-weigh the evidence submitted at the initial hearing. A reconsideration is not an opportunity to re-argue one’s case.
12An adjudicator is not required to refer to every piece of evidence or every argument put forward by a party when reaching a determination on the disputed issues. Jurisprudence from the Tribunal further establishes this. The following cases were referenced by the applicant: Sidiura v, Aviva General Insurance Company, 2021 CanLII 64243 (ON LAT); G.I. v The Guarantee Company of North America, 2021 CanLII 111185 (ON LAT); E.M. v. The Guarantee Company of North America, 2020 CanLII 12763 (ON LAT); and Landa v. The Dominion of Canada General Insurance Company, 2024 ONSC 2871 (Div. Ct).
13At paragraphs 6 through 13 of my decision, I set out the relevant background facts. At paragraphs 33 through 38 of my decision, I set out the respondent’s position. While not every fact set out by the parties is included in these paragraphs, it was my discretion to state the facts that were relevant to my decision. I do not agree with the respondent’s submission at paragraph 15 that I omitted relevant facts in my analysis. I find that the evidence provided by the respondent at paragraph 15 of its reconsideration submissions is a restatement of the evidence already set out in its initial submissions that has already been considered in my decision.
14I do not accept the respondent’s submission that I did not undertake a comparison between the ability of the applicant and the care provided by his sister.
15At paragraph 23 of my decision, I set out the test in Co-Operators v. TD, as follows:
A determination of “principally dependent for care” requires a finding that an individual received more care from one on whom he or she depends than what was available from his or her own and other resources, including an analysis of the ability of the alleged defendant to be self-supporting.
16At paragraph 47 and 48 of my decision, I provided a qualitative analysis of the degree of care provided by the sister and the applicant’s need for care. I stated that:
I accept the applicant’s evidence that his sister has become like a parent to him, and he depended on her for physical and emotional support and care. I find that the applicant did not have a relationship with his father, and he had a difficult relationship with his mother because she lived in Africa.
I find that the evidence supports that the applicant had evolving care needs throughout the years, as he transitioned from a 14-year-old boy to a 19-year-old university student and basketball prospect. He had learning difficulties in school as well as various injuries. He was faced with difficult decisions about his basketball career and the steps required of him. I accept the evidence of the applicant that his sister provided him with the support and security he needed during these years, including ongoing communications and advice. I find that, while his mother might have assisted him financially, it is the applicant’s evidence that his sister was the one who called and FaceTimed him multiple times a week, and sometimes daily to ensure he was doing well and had everything he needed. It is apparent to me from the applicant’s evidence that he needed and derived from his sister a sense of security that was readily accessible to him.
17At paragraph 50 of my decision, I disagreed with the respondent’s submission that the applicant was self-supporting and able to maintain reasonable functioning in his daily life, independent of his sister’s care. I dealt with the respondent’s submission that the applicant was independent because he lived away from home and was able to attend class and be successful in his athletic performance, at paragraph 52 of my decision, where I found that:
I accept the applicant’s evidence that he was able to function at school, deal with his physical injuries and resulting disappointments with the main support of his sister.
18For these reasons, I do not find that the respondent has demonstrated that I erred in fact or in law in my decision such that I would likely have reached a different result had the error not been made. As a result, the respondent’s request for reconsideration is dismissed.
b. I did not err in finding a physical or mental vulnerability is not generally required for a finding of dependency for care
19The respondent submits that I erred in law in my decision, by finding that a physical or mental vulnerability is not generally required for a finding of dependency for care. It submits that I did not consider paragraph 28 of the decision in Co-Operators v. TD which states that a finding of dependency for care must be based on an analysis of the person’s physical, emotional and social needs and generally requires the existence of a vulnerability or a physical/mental disability. The respondent submits that the applicant was not vulnerable as he was able to live on his own without any significant support of his sister.
20The applicant submits that the respondent is alleging, incorrectly, that the law requires vulnerability before someone will be found to be dependent and that the applicant was not vulnerable. The applicant submits that the respondent advanced this exact argument in the initial hearing and is simply relitigating the point, hoping for a different outcome. The applicant further submits that I quoted the very passage of the Co-Operators v. TD decision being relied upon by the respondent in my decision.
21I find that the respondent’s request for reconsideration is an attempt to re-argue its case, and that the respondent is asking the Tribunal to re-weigh the evidence submitted at the initial hearing. A reconsideration is not an opportunity to re-argue one’s case.
22In any event, I do not agree with the respondent’s submission that I did not consider paragraph 28 of the decision in Co-Operators v. TD in my analysis. Upon review of paragraph 28, it quotes the decision in Echelon General Insurance Co. v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., July 13, 2011, that states:
The focus of the analysis on dependency for care must be on what the insured’s physical, emotional and social needs are, and the extent to which the person in question provides for those needs. A finding of dependency for care generally requires the existence of a vulnerability or physical/mental disability.
23At paragraph 53 of my decision, I directly addressed this quote in Echelon v. State Farm. I found that upon review of this decision, that it does not make the general proposition that a finding of dependency for care requires the existence of a vulnerability. I concluded that the analysis of the entire fact situation must be considered on a case-by-case basis. As I dealt with the direct quote from Echelon v. State Farm, it was not also necessary to quote the same proposition from the decision in Co-Operators v. TD.
24I agree with the applicant that the applicant’s educational vulnerabilities and need for care were set out at paragraph 41 of my decision. In addition, at paragraphs 46 to 52 of my decision, I conducted an analysis of the applicant’s physical, emotional and social needs. These factors were all considered when reaching my conclusion that the applicant was dependent on his sister for care.
25For these reasons, I do not find that the respondent has demonstrated that I erred in fact or in law in my decision such that I would likely have reached a different result had the error not been made. As a result, the respondent’s request for reconsideration is dismissed.
ORDER
26For the reasons set out above, the respondent’s request for reconsideration is dismissed.
Melanie Malach
Adjudicator
Tribunals Ontario – Licence Appeal Tribunal
Released: July 28, 2025