RECONSIDERATION DECISION
Before: Julian DiBattista, Vice-Chair
Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number: 23-014816/AABS
Case Name: Andrei Zodian v. Continental Casualty Insurance Company
Written Submissions by:
For the Applicant: Harry Steinmetz, Counsel
For the Respondent: Lisa Armstrong, Counsel
OVERVIEW
1On December 24, 2025 respondent requested reconsideration of the Tribunal’s decision dated December 3, 2025 (“decision”).
2In this decision, I found that the respondent incorrectly applied s.4(5) of the Schedule in calculating the applicant’s income replacement benefit (“IRB”).
3Specifically, I found that the respondent had incorrectly applied the Schedule as it relates to unfiled income taxes and found that the applicant had complied with the request made under s.33(1) of the Schedule for financial documentation relating to his self-employment.
4The 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.
5The respondent relies on Rule 18.2(b) to support their reconsideration request. They are asking the Tribunal to find that the applicant was not entitled to the awarded IRB, as the Tribunal had incorrectly found the applicant had complied with a request made under s.33(1) of the Schedule.
6The respondent requests that the Tribunal grant reconsideration and vary the decision to confirm that the applicant is not entitled to an IRB from November 29, 2017 to September 4, 2024, as he had not complied with the s.33(1) request.
7The applicant asks the Tribunal to dismiss the request for reconsideration.
RESULT
8The respondent’s request for reconsideration is dismissed.
ANALYSIS
9The 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.
10The respondent submits that the Tribunal incorrectly found that applicant had complied with the request under s.33(1) and therefore is not entitled to the awarded IRB.
11In paragraph 8 of the respondent’s initial hearing submissions, the dispute is framed as one over financial documents:
At the time this Application was filed the Applicant had not filed his 2016 income tax return, being the last fiscal year that ended on or before the day of the accident. Nor had he provided the Insurer with proof of income, financial documents or evidence he had filed his taxes. As a result, an IRB had never been paid and the Applicant was in non-compliance with s. 33.
12The letter to the applicant on April 7, 2021 stated, “It is our principal’s determination that the amount of any Income Replacement Benefit payable would be $0.00 (zero) since you did not report your pre-accident income to the Canada Revenue Agency as required under this section of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.”
13At the time of the letter, the applicant had not filed his 2016 taxes. Therefore, the amount of pre-accident income that could be used to determine the quantum of benefits is $0.00.
14The respondent submits that the applicant failed to provide them with other financial records, however, per s. 4(5) of the Schedule, these records would not have changed the determination made on April 7, 2021.
15The respondent further submits in paragraph 19 of their reconsideration submissions that:
The April 7, 2021 letter does not indicate that the Respondent calculated the Applicant’s IRB quantum. Nor did it in anyway suggest that the Applicant had provided any documentation as requested by the Respondent such that a calculation could be made.
16I disagree with this position. In the April 7, 2021 letter the respondent explicitly states, “It is our principal’s determination that the amount of any Income Replacement Benefit payable would be $0.00.” The respondent was able to determine, or calculate, a quantum of zero. This determination is supported by s. 4(5) of the Schedule.
17By communicating to the respondent that he had not filed his pre-accident income taxes, the applicant has provided the totality of information required for the respondent to correctly calculate the quantum of his benefit at $0.00.
18Any further financial records provided while the applicant’s taxes had not been filed could not be used to calculate the quantum per s.4(5), as the applicant had not reported his income to the CRA.
19The respondent cannot identify another document or thing that would change the determination of a $0.00 IRB quantum during the period when the applicant had not filed his 2016 tax return.
20Therefore, I find that the respondent has not shown that I made an error of fact or law. Overall, in notifying the respondent that he had not filed his pre-accident taxes, the applicant, at that point in time, fulfilled the s.33(1) request. The applicant provided the respondent with the sole piece of information that was needed to calculate the applicant’s IRB while his taxes had not been filed.
CONCLUSION & ORDER
21The respondent’s request for reconsideration is dismissed.
Julian DiBattista
Vice-Chair
Released: March 9, 2026