RECONSIDERATION DECISION
Before: Nathan Prince, Adjudicator
Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number: 23-014551/AABS
Case Name: Feng Tong Guan vs. The Co-Operators Insurance Company
Written Submissions by:
For the Applicant: Vanessa Liang, Counsel
For the Respondent: Julianne Brimfield, Counsel
OVERVIEW
1On May 15, 2025, the applicant requested reconsideration of the Tribunal’s decision dated April 22, 2025 (“decision”).
2The respondent has also filed a request for reconsideration for this same decision. It is being addressed through a separate decision.
3Stemming from an automobile accident on February 10, 2023, and a request for accident benefits made pursuant to the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule – Effective September 1, 2010 (including amendments effective June 1, 2016) (“Schedule”), the parties participated in a videoconference hearing before myself and a fellow adjudicator. We found that the applicant was entitled to pre-104 week income replacement benefits (“IRBs”) in the amount of $169.00 per week. However, she was not entitled to post-104 week IRBs. In addition, we found that the applicant was not entitled to physical therapy and chiropractic services, occupational therapy services, rehabilitation support worker/case management services, psychotherapy services, or an award.
4On reconsideration, the applicant seeks to have the quantum of pre-104 week IRBs amended to $400.00 per week, and further requests that we approve post-104 week IRBs, the denied treatment plans, and an award.
5The 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.
6The applicant relies on Rules 18.2(a), 18.2(b), and 18.2(c) in her request for reconsideration.
7The respondent opposes the applicant’s request for reconsideration.
RESULT
8The applicant’s request for reconsideration is dismissed.
PROCEDURAL ISSUES
The applicant’s submissions exceed the maximum number of pages
9I find that any of the applicant’s initial reconsideration submissions that are beyond the 10-page limit will not be considered.
10Rule 18.1(c)(i) states that: “The submissions [in support of a request for reconsideration] must not exceed 10 double-spaced pages in length, exclusive of evidence and authorities.” The applicant’s submissions are 40 pages in length and significantly exceed the maximum amount prescribed by the Rules.
11On May 28, 2025, the reconsideration order of Vice-Chair Mazerolle permitted the applicant’s request for reconsideration to proceed. However, it was noted that it is at my discretion to determine whether to consider any of the applicant’s submissions that exceed the prescribed page limit set out in the Rules. The reconsideration order also provided that the respondent was limited to 10 pages in its responding submissions.
12The respondent objects to the submissions provided outside of the 10-page limit, and it submits that any submissions beyond this limit should not be considered. The respondent submits that allowing submissions beyond the 10-page limit would be procedurally unfair because it was only allotted 10 pages for its response. According to the respondent, it was prejudiced by how it was unable to address all of the issues raised by the applicant in her 40-page submissions.
13I find that it is not necessary to address the respondent’s submissions regarding any potential prejudice or procedural unfairness because, in any event, Rule 18.1(c)(i) is not permissive in nature. The use of the word “must” indicates that the parties are required to adhere to the 10-page limit prescribed by the Rule. Should the applicant have wished to lengthen the page limits, it was open to her to bring a motion seeking such relief from the Tribunal; however, no Notice of Motion was filed to seek permission for an extended page limit.
14Moreover, the applicant was given an opportunity to refile her submissions in compliance with the 10-page limit. On May 23, 2025, the Tribunal e-mailed the parties to inform the applicant that the supporting submissions exceeded the page limit set out in Rule 18.1. The applicant was “asked to resubmit and serve this Request for Reconsideration in compliance with the submissions page limit set out in Rule 18.1(c)(i).” Despite this request, the applicant chose not to refile her submissions and instead she requested that the Tribunal consider her 40-page submissions. However, no reasons were provided in support of her request.
15In summary, I find that only the first 10 pages of the applicant’s reconsideration submissions will be considered. The applicant was given an opportunity to bring her submissions into compliance and chose not to. Moreover, she did not seek permission from the Tribunal to file 40-page submissions.
ANALYSIS
16The 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(a) – The Tribunal acted outside of its jurisdiction or committed material breach of procedural fairness
17I find the applicant has not established grounds for reconsideration based on Rule 18.2(a).
18The applicant submits that the Tribunal acted outside of its jurisdiction when it was not persuaded by an invoice that was created to support the applicant’s quantum of IRBs. The applicant submits that the invoice is in compliance with CRA record keeping requirements, as well as bookkeeping and accounting principles. As such, the applicant contends it was not up to the Tribunal to dispute the validity of the document.
19Respectfully, I disagree with the applicant. It is precisely the Tribunal’s role to consider the evidence before it and attach appropriate weight. The fact that an invoice may be generated in compliance with CRA record keeping requirements and accounting principles does not require the Tribunal to accept the document at face value.
20The invoice was reviewed by the panel, and, at paragraph 55 of the decision, we found that “the invoice lacks necessary detail regarding the services that were provided during 2022. The invoice does not indicate any dates or times of the alleged massage services or how the $30,000 was accrued.”
21As such, I find that the Tribunal did not act outside of its jurisdiction when it found that the invoice provided was not persuasive.
22The remainder of the first 10 pages of the applicant’s submissions are a restatement of various facts relating to the applicant’s pre- and post-accident health, her work and finances, the respondent’s adjusting of the file, and the qualifications of one of her treatment providers. None of these submissions allege a breach of Rule 18.2(a), and they instead appear to be an attempt to re-litigate the issues. Reconsideration is not an opportunity to re-weigh evidence or re-litigate arguments raised during the initial hearing.
23Based on the foregoing, I find the applicant has not established grounds for reconsideration on the basis of Rule 18.2(a).
Rule 18.2(b) and Rule 18.3(c) – No submissions were made within the first 10 pages of the applicant’s submissions
24I find the applicant has not established grounds for reconsideration based on Rule 18.2(b) or 18.2(c).
25As previously mentioned, the first 10 pages of the applicant’s submissions are a restatement of various facts relating to the applicant’s pre- and post-accident health, her work and finances, the respondent’s adjusting of the file, and the qualifications of one of her treatment providers. None of these submissions allege a breach of Rules 18.2(b) or 18.2(c), and they instead appear to be an attempt to re-litigate the issues. Once again, reconsideration is not an opportunity to re-weigh evidence or re-litigate arguments raised during the initial hearing.
26The documents and facts pointed to by the applicant were all before the Tribunal at the time of the hearing, and the applicant’s remaining submissions do not point to any errors that would establish grounds for reconsideration under Rules 18.2(b) or 18.2(c). Furthermore, I was not pointed to any evidence that was not before the Tribunal when rendering its decision which could not have been obtained previously.
27Based on the foregoing, I find the applicant has not established grounds for reconsideration on the basis of Rules 18.2(b) or 18.2(c).
CONCLUSION & ORDER
28For the reasons noted above, the applicant’s request for reconsideration is dismissed.
Nathan Prince Adjudicator Tribunals Ontario – Licence Appeal Tribunal
Released: September 16, 2025