RECONSIDERATION DECISION
Before:
Kate Grieves, Adjudicator
Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number:
24-005429/AABS
Case Name:
[M.C] (A minor by their litigation guardian, [N.N] v. Certas Direct Insurance Company
Written Submissions by:
For the Applicant:
Sherilyn J. Pickering, Counsel
For the Respondent:
Meredith A. Harper, Counsel
OVERVIEW
1On April 30, 2025, the respondent requested reconsideration of the Tribunal’s preliminary issue decision dated April 11, 2025 (“decision”).
2The dispute concerned whether the applicant was an “insured person” under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule – Effective September 1, 2010 (including amendments effective June 1, 2016) (the “Schedule”). In the decision, I noted that the applicant herself was not involved in the accident. Rather, her [relative], [C], was catastrophically injured in an accident. Therefore, by finding that the applicant’s mother, [N.N], demonstrated a settled intention to treat [C] as a child, I concluded that the applicant and [C] were sisters. Accordingly, the applicant was an “insured person” under the Schedule and entitled to accident benefits.
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 respondent submits that I made an error of law and/or fact such that the Tribunal would likely have reached a different result if the error had not been made. The respondent submits that I made an error in finding that the applicant and [C] are sisters, and that the evidence supports a finding that they are cousins.
5The applicant seeks to have the request for reconsideration dismissed.
RESULT
6The respondent’s request for reconsideration is dismissed.
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.
8The respondent’s submissions are an improper use of a request for reconsideration. In addition to introducing new arguments and case law, the respondent is asking the Tribunal to re-weigh evidence that has already been considered. The reconsideration process is not an avenue for advancing new arguments and case law that a party could have, but did not, raise before the Tribunal at the hearing, nor is it meant to be means to re-weigh evidence assessed at first instance.
9The respondent’s original submissions made reference to two cases with respect to the principles of statutory interpretation. The respondent did not address any case law with respect to the definition of an “insured person” in its original submissions.
10On reconsideration, the respondent raises seven Tribunal cases with respect to the definition of an “insured person” that it never previously raised. I decline to consider these decisions, as there is no explanation for why they were not raised at first instance.
11The respondent also now refers to the Superior Court decision of Estate of Sydney Monteith v. Monteith et al., 2023 ONSC 7246. In this case, a former foster child, who had maintained a close relationship with her former foster father, claimed a share of the father’s estate when he died without a will. The foster child made this claim on the basis that she was a sister of the deceased’s biological daughter. This case should have again been raised at first instance, but I also note that it is distinguishable on its face. This present dispute concerns the interpretation of consumer protection legislation, while the Court was considering provisions of the Succession Law Reform Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. S.26.
12More than half of the respondent’s submissions raise issues that were not raised in the initial submissions, which is inappropriate on reconsideration.
13The respondent summarizes what it characterizes as “the documentary evidence” that was before me at first instance, and it submits that it was an error for me to rely on the mother-like/guardianship role of [N.N] to [C] to ultimately conclude that the applicant and [C] were sisters. I do not find the respondent has established an error based on these arguments, as it neglects to mention the totality of the evidence. I noted at paragraph 15 of the decision that the evidence supported the mother-daughter nature of their relationship, noting, among other things, that [N.N] had assumed guardianship of [C], was supporting [C] financially, was listed as [C’s] guardian in school, had been providing significant care to [C] and had been appointed as her guardian for property, personal care, and litigation.
14I find this to be an attempt to re-weigh the evidence due to dissatisfaction with the outcome. The respondent has not identified specific errors of fact or law in my analysis.
CONCLUSION & ORDER
15The respondent’s request for reconsideration is dismissed.
Kate Grieves
Adjudicator
Tribunals Ontario – Licence Appeal Tribunal
Released: August 8, 2025