RECONSIDERATION DECISION
Before: Craig Mazerolle, Vice-Chair
Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number: 24-012786/AABS
Case Name: Vida Karimy v. Pembridge Insurance Company
Written Submissions by:
For the Applicant: Serena Rhyman, Paralegal
For the Respondent: Andrew Cottreau, Counsel
OVERVIEW
1On December 29, 2025, the applicant requested reconsideration of the Tribunal’s decision released December 5, 2025 (“decision”).
2Stemming from an accident on November 11, 2021 and a request for benefits made pursuant to the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule – Effective September 1, 2010 (including amendments effective June 1, 2016) (the “Schedule”), the parties participated in a one-day videoconference hearing. The hearing was conducted by a panel of two adjudicators.
3In the decision, the Tribunal found the applicant was held to the Minor Injury Guideline (“MIG”). As a result, the Tribunal further determined it was not necessary to consider whether the three treatment plans in dispute were reasonable and necessary. The Tribunal also concluded that she was not entitled to an income replacement benefit (“IRB”) or interest.
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 applicant only checked off Rule 18.2(b) on her Request for Reconsideration form, but her supporting submissions touch on both alleged errors and procedural fairness. As such, I have considered both Rule 18.2(a) and Rule 18.2(b) in this reconsideration decision.
6The applicant is asking the Tribunal to find she is entitled to IRB payments for the pre-104 week period. There is no reference to any remedy the applicant is seeking regarding the MIG or the treatment plans.
7The respondent opposes the applicant’s request for reconsideration.
RESULT
8The applicant’s request for reconsideration is granted.
9Pursuant to Rule 18.4, the decision is cancelled. A rehearing will be conducted before a new adjudicator. A case conference will be scheduled within 30 days of the release of this reconsideration decision.
ANALYSIS
10The test for reconsideration under Rule 18.2 involves a high threshold, and the requesting party must show how or why the decision falls into one of the categories in Rule 18.2. 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.
11The applicant raises two issues with the decision:
a. The Tribunal decided the issues of the MIG and the three treatment plans, yet the applicant had removed these issues prior to the hearing; and,
b. The Tribunal did not consider the evidence and case law she included with her motion submissions.
12Though I find the applicant is successful on the second of these two grounds, I will address the first argument as well.
Removal of Certain Issues in Dispute
13I find the applicant has not established any grounds for reconsideration as it relates to the removal of certain issues in dispute.
14Appended to her initial reconsideration submissions is a Notice of Motion (dated June 9, 2025) that the applicant sent to the Tribunal prior to the start of the hearing. She asked for the removal of all the issues in dispute, save for the IRB.
15As pointed out by the respondent, the applicant put the incorrect file number on this Notice of Motion. The respondent claims that the Tribunal wrote to the applicant asking her to re-file this form with the correct file number (though it did not include a copy of this correspondence with its reconsideration submissions). According to the respondent, the applicant never re-filed the form.
16In her reply, the applicant addresses this submission as follows:
As the Respondent quoted in the previous paragraph… the Tribunal had advised that motion was not required, only advice [sic] the Tribunal. This email did not state that written confirmation was required, all that was required was that the tribunal be advised, including at the hearing.
17Despite the applicant’s contention that these issues were removed, it appears from the decision that MIG submissions were, in fact, made during the hearing. For instance, at paragraph 15, the panel wrote: “The applicant submits she should be removed from the MIG because she suffers from an accident-related psychological impairment.” A similar comment was made at paragraph 22 about chronic pain. Taken together, I am satisfied that the applicant has not shown how the Tribunal erred in its decision to proceed with the issues of the MIG and the treatment plans, nor has she shown how this choice was procedurally unfair. Rather, these issues appear to have remained in dispute.
18Additionally, I find the applicant has not shown how this potential oversight had any impact on the procedural fairness or outcome of the proceeding. The applicant claims that the panel erred “when they focused on medical rehabilitation”, as they should have “focused only on the issue of [the IRB].” The applicant does not explain how this focus on “medical rehabilitation” had any impact on the conclusion that she was not entitled to an IRB.
Applicant’s Motion Submissions
19The applicant then claims the Tribunal “made a serious error in law” when it did not consider the case law and evidence she included with her motion submissions. By allegedly failing to consider the evidence and case law at hand, the applicant claims the Tribunal breached its obligation to provide sufficient reasons, as laid out in R.K.K. v. Cooperators General Insurance Co., 2021 CanLII 18934 (ON LAT) (“R.K.K.”).
20I do note that the applicant is slightly unclear as to what she is referring to when she references “motion submissions” in her reconsideration request. Specifically, she is either referring to her own Notice of Motion, or to the motion submissions she filed in response to the motion from the respondent to strike her IRB claim due to a failure to submit an OCF-10. After reviewing these sets of submissions, I am satisfied that she is referring to the latter, i.e., the responding submissions.
21As noted by the Supreme Court of Canada at paragraph 79 in Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65 (“Vavilov”), reasons ensure the fairness and legitimacy of decision-making (citations removed):
Reasons explain how and why a decision was made. They help to show affected parties that their arguments have been considered and demonstrate that the decision was made in a fair and lawful manner. Reasons shield against arbitrariness as well as the perception of arbitrariness in the exercise of public power.
22Further, as the Supreme Court stated at paragraph 39 in Baker v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 1999 CanLII 699 (SCC) (“Baker”), reasons allow decisions to be questioned: “Reasons are invaluable if a decision is to be appealed, questioned, or considered on judicial review”.
23In light of these principles, I do not find the Tribunal provided sufficient reasons in the decision. Specifically, the Tribunal did not adequately grapple with the arguments that the applicant put forward in her responding motion submissions—submissions that explained her opposition to the respondent’s argument that the late-filing of her OCF-10 was fatal to her IRB claim.
24The applicant’s entitlement to the IRB was addressed at paragraphs 30 – 38. Briefly, after reviewing the parties’ arguments, the Tribunal found there was ambiguity contained in the applicant’s OCF-3, such that the respondent’s request for an OCF-10 was reasonable. Relying on the binding principle from Lefebvre v. Aviva Insurance Company of Canada, 2018 ONSC 5676, namely, that a missing OCF-10 cannot be provided after the Tribunal application is filed, the panel concluded (at paragraph 38):
We find there was no dispute when the LAT application was commenced because an election had not been made (let alone responded to), and that defect was not cured by the election made after the commencement of the LAT application. Therefore, we find on the balance of probabilities the applicant has not demonstrated that she is entitled to an IRB.
25In reaching this conclusion, there is no explicit mention of the case law presented by the applicant in her responding motion submissions. For instance, as noted in her reconsideration submissions, there is no engagement with her arguments concerning Aziz v. Pembridge Insurance Company, 2024 CanLII 15881 (ON LAT), a case that she cited as an example of when the Tribunal found an OCF-10 was not required. The Tribunal also did not mention Ganea v. Travelers Insurance, 2021 CanLII 108368 (ON LAT) or Nelson v. Primmum Insurance Company, 2025 CanLII 25826 (ON LAT).
26Instead, the applicant’s position on the respondent’s request for an OCF-10 was summarized at paragraph 35 of the decision with no reference to any of this case law:
The applicant admits that she did not submit an OCF-10 indicating her IRB election until May 23, 2025, after the LAT application filing date of October 16, 2024. The applicant also submits the completion of an OCF-1 and OCF-3 were attempts by the applicant to access specified benefits.
27Tribunals are not expected to address every argument raised during a hearing. Yet, in accordance with Vavilov and Baker, a decision-maker’s reasons must show they have considered all the parties’ key arguments. The applicant’s motion submissions formed a key part of her defense against the respondent’s IRB position. In particular, she cited Tribunal case law as an attempt to differentiate her circumstances from other cases where an OCF-10 was found to be a necessary part of the adjusting process. I am satisfied that these arguments were not minor, tertiary submissions that did not need to be formally explored in the decision.
28I also note that the Tribunal recognized that this motion had been filed, and that the parties were informed that it would be heard as part of the videoconference hearing: see paragraph 6 of the decision.
29As such, I do not see this reconsideration request as an attempt to re-argue an unsuccessful position from the hearing, nor is it a request for the Tribunal to list every trivial position made in a party’s submissions. Rather, the applicant is seeking to have key arguments addressed in the Tribunal’s reasons. By not addressing this core aspect of her case, I find the applicant has shown that the Tribunal committed a material breach of procedural fairness, pursuant to Rule 18.2(a).
30The respondent challenges this position in several ways, but I do not find these arguments are compelling. First, the respondent submits it is “unfair for the Applicant to not provide the transcript” from the hearing, especially as there were both oral and written arguments made by the parties. Since I have access to her written motion submissions, I can compare these arguments to those that were included in the decision. The transcript is not needed.
31The respondent also claims this submission is an improper request to have the Tribunal re-assess the parties’ positions from the hearing. I accept that the reconsideration process is not a venue for asking the Tribunal to take another look at evidence and submissions considered at first instance. However, as noted above, I do not find the applicant is asking for this kind of relief.
32Finally, the respondent claims the applicant improperly raised a new case on reconsideration, i.e., R.K.K. It is generally inappropriate for parties to raise new arguments on reconsideration. Yet, this case is not being raised as a means of presenting a new position that could have been reasonably introduced during the hearing. R.K.K. is being cited by the applicant to help her make an argument that she could have only known she had to make after the decision was released, namely, that the reasons provided in the decision were insufficient.
33In sum, I find the applicant has established grounds for reconsideration based on Rule 18.2(a).
Rule 18.4 – Cancelling the Decision
34Due to the Tribunal’s lack of explicit consideration of the applicant’s motion submissions (a key aspect of her defense against the respondent’s position on the OCF-10), I find the only appropriate remedy under Rule 18.4 is to cancel the decision and order a rehearing.
35I further find that a case conference should be held prior to the scheduling of this rehearing, as there appears to be some confusion over what issues remain in dispute.
CONCLUSION & ORDER
36The applicant’s request for reconsideration is granted.
37Pursuant to Rule 18.4, the decision is cancelled. A rehearing will be conducted before a new adjudicator.
38A case conference will be scheduled within 30 days of the release of this reconsideration decision so that the Tribunal may issue procedural and administrative directions as necessary for the conduct of the rehearing.
39The Tribunal shall reach out to the parties to canvass dates for this case conference.
40I am not seized.
Craig Mazerolle
Vice-Chair
Released: March 12, 2026