RECONSIDERATION DECISION
Before:
E. Louise Logan, Vice-Chair
Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number:
24-007959/AABS
Case Name:
Harjinder Bhambra v. Economical Insurance Company
Written Submissions by:
For the Applicant:
Mobina Khan, Counsel
For the Respondent:
No submissions received
OVERVIEW
1On November 28, 2025, the applicant requested reconsideration of the Tribunal’s decision dated October 15, 2025 (“decision”).
2The issues in dispute were whether the applicant should be removed from the Minor Injury Guideline (“MIG”) and entitled to the treatment plans in dispute, interest and an award. In the decision, the Tribunal determined that the applicant had not filed submissions, and, therefore, the applicant had not met his onus with respect to the issues in dispute. The application was dismissed.
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 is seeking reconsideration pursuant to Rule 18.2(a) and Rule 18.2(b). The applicant submits that the Tribunal made an error because he did make submissions for the initial hearing. The applicant seeks to have the decision set aside and a new decision issued.
5The respondent did not make reconsideration submissions.
RESULT
6I find that the applicant has established grounds for reconsideration.
7Pursuant to Rule 18.4, the decision is cancelled and a rehearing is ordered.
ANALYSIS
8The 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) – Error of Fact or Law
9I find that the applicant has provided evidence that he filed and served submissions for the written hearing. These submissions were filed and served on June 25, 2025, which is the deadline provided for in the Case Conference Report and Order (“CCRO”), dated November 6, 2024.
10By way of background, a case conference was held in this matter on November 4, 2024. The issues in dispute were set down of a written hearing. The CCRO set deadlines for the parties’ submissions. The applicant’s submissions were due 30 calendar days before the hearing; the respondent’s responding submissions were due 14 calendar days before the hearing; and the applicant’s reply submissions were due 7 calendar days before the hearing.
11A notice of written hearing was issued to the parties on November 14, 2024, setting a hearing date of July 25, 2025. This means the applicant’s submissions were due on June 25, 2025.
12Included with the applicant’s reconsideration submissions is evidence that his submissions for the initial hearing were filed with the Tribunal, and served on the respondent, on June 25, 2025. The respondent filed responding submissions on July 11, 2025, which reference the applicant’s initial submissions.
13Accordingly, I find that the Tribunal erred when it determined that the applicant had not made submissions for the initial hearing. I also find that this error would likely have changed the outcome of the decision because the decision was made without the benefit of considering the applicant’s submissions and evidence.
14Therefore, grounds for reconsideration have been established pursuant to Rule 18.2(b). As the applicant has established grounds for reconsideration pursuant to Rule 18.2(b), it is not necessary for me to consider whether grounds have been established pursuant to Rule 18.2(a).
Rule 18.4 – Outcome of Reconsideration
15Pursuant to Rule 18.4, the decision is cancelled. I am ordering a rehearing of the issues in dispute by a new adjudicator. The rehearing will be based on the submissions, evidence and authorities filed by the parties for the initial hearing.
CONCLUSION & ORDER
16The applicant’s request for reconsideration is granted.
17The decision is cancelled. I am ordering a rehearing of the issues in dispute by a new adjudicator.
18The rehearing will be based on the submissions, evidence and authorities filed by the parties for the initial hearing.
19I am not seized.
E. Louise Logan
Vice-Chair
Released: February 11, 2026