RECONSIDERATION DECISION
Before:
Craig Mazerolle, Vice-Chair
Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number:
24-002045/AABS
Case Name:
Amare Shiferaw v. Aviva General Insurance Company
Written Submissions by:
For the Applicant:
Amare Shiferaw, Applicant
For the Respondent:
Mark Vella, Counsel
OVERVIEW
1On November 20, 2025, the applicant requested reconsideration of the Tribunal’s decision released November 3, 2025 (“decision”).
2Stemming from an accident on February 9, 2023 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 written hearing. In the decision, the Tribunal found the applicant’s claims for an income replacement benefit (“IRB”) and two treatment plans were no longer in dispute, as these benefits had either been paid or approved, respectively. The Tribunal further dismissed his request for an award.
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 relies on Rule 18.2(b) to support his reconsideration request. Despite his concerns with the overall handling of the file by the Tribunal, the applicant appears to accept the reasons regarding the IRB denial, as he states:
The only thing I raised regarding the IRB was, I said I have a feeling that the amount is small, but I was told it is my responsibility to figure out the exact amount I think I should get. I accept the explanation, and the case regarding the IRB has not been disputed.
5The respondent asks the Tribunal to dismiss the request for reconsideration.
RESULT
6The applicant’s request for reconsideration is dismissed.
ANALYSIS
7The test for reconsideration under Rule 18.2 involves a high threshold, and the requesting party—in this case, the applicant—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.
8I find the applicant has not established any grounds for reconsideration under Rule 18.2.
9The present case has a complicated procedural history. The relevant parts of this timeline are laid out at paragraphs 7, 8, and 11 – 13 of the decision:
On June 17, 2024, the parties participated in a case conference and a Case Conference Report and Order (“CCRO”) was issued to the parties on July 2, 2024, setting the matter down for a written hearing. A notice of written hearing was sent to all parties on July 4, 2024, advising that the written hearing was scheduled for March 28, 2025…
On September 3, 2024, the applicant filed a Notice of Motion for an order to amend, what he submitted, were errors in the CCRO. In a Motion Order dated September 9, 2024, the Tribunal denied the applicant’s motion, addressed each of the issues raised by the applicant in his motion, and provided explanations and clarity to better assist the applicant on the Tribunal’s processes, including how the applicant can address some of the issues in his written submissions.
On February 24, 2025, the applicant filed a Request for an Adjournment of the written hearing scheduled for March 28, 2025, because of the continuous health issues he is experiencing. The applicant requested that the written hearing be adjourned to May 30, 2025. By Adjournment Order, dated February 25, 2025, the applicant’s request was denied. However, the deadlines for the parties’ written submissions were amended as follows: the applicant was to serve and file his written submissions by March 5, 2025; the respondent was to serve and file its responding submissions by March 21, 2025; and the applicant was to serve and file his reply submissions by March 27, 2025.
The applicant provided multiple responses to the Adjournment Order via correspondence dated March 3, 14, 19, 24, and 27, 2025, setting out his disagreement with the Order. Subsequently he wrote multiple emails to the Tribunal and the respondent on April 16, 17, 24, 25, 29 and September 11, 2025, expressing his concerns and asking the Tribunal for help.
To date, the applicant has not provided written submissions with respect to the issues in dispute in this hearing.
Initial Reconsideration Submissions
10In his initial reconsideration submissions, the applicant raises several concerns with the Tribunal’s handling of his file:
a. The Tribunal erred by allegedly ignoring the “medical report from Dr. Igor Wilderman” that “shows clearly the degree of my injury, both visible and invisible”;
b. The Tribunal did not assist the applicant with obtaining a summons;
c. The Tribunal misunderstood his adjournment request as a request for legal assistance; and,
d. The Tribunal incorrectly found he did not provide written submissions, even though “I submitted the submission on March 24, 2025”.
11I sympathize with the health concerns he has detailed, as well as the difficulty he has encountered while navigating the Tribunal’s processes without legal representation. However, to grant the applicant’s request for reconsideration, he must show the test under Rule 18.2(b) has been met. Specifically, he must demonstrate that the Tribunal committed a legal or factual error, and that this error would likely have impacted the outcome of the decision. He has not met this onus.
12As noted above, the Tribunal denied the applicant’s application primarily on the basis that both the IRB and the two treatment plans had either been paid or approved (at paragraphs 15 and 17):
The respondent submits that there are no issues in dispute. It submits that by letter dated June 18, 2024, the day following the Case Conference, it advised the applicant that the two treatment plans in dispute were approved. With respect to the issue of IRBs, it advised that IRBs were reinstated at a rate of $124.92 weekly, plus interest. In addition, on February 4, 2025, the respondent advised the applicant that it was increasing the amount of IRBs payable to $185.00 weekly in accordance with s. 7(2) of the Schedule.
I find that the respondent has provided evidence by way of a copy of its letter dated June 18, 2024, that confirms that the two treatment plans in dispute were approved, and that the applicant’s IRBs were reinstated. I find that the respondent’s letter dated February 4, 2025, confirms that his IRB was increased to $185.00 per week.
13Put simply, the respondent submitted it either paid or approved all the issues identified at the case conference. The Tribunal reviewed the respondent’s records, and it determined that none of these issues remained in dispute. As such, the application was dismissed.
14The reconsideration grounds raised by the applicant do not show how this finding is incorrect. Allegations of overlooked medical evidence, confusion over the purpose of his adjournment request, and the inability to summons a witness do not address the fact that the respondent was found to have approved the benefits at issue. Therefore, I find the applicant has not shown how any of the alleged errors put forward in his reconsideration request would likely have impacted the outcome of the decision—a key part of the test under Rule 18.2(b).
15I also note that, while the applicant placed a significant focus in his request on his inability to obtain a summons, the hearing was conducted in writing. A summons allows parties to require an individual to appear before the Tribunal to provide oral testimony. Since the hearing took place in writing, there was no opportunity for witnesses to appear.
16Turning to the applicant’s claim that he did provide submissions for the written hearing, I accept that overlooking the applicant’s submissions may have had an impact on whether he was entitled to an award. Specifically, the Tribunal declined to order an award based on this lack of submissions (at paragraph 18):
… With respect to the issue of an award, as no submissions or evidence with respect to the hearing issues have been filed with the Tribunal by the applicant, I find that the applicant has not met his evidentiary burden to support his entitlement to an award.
17However, despite showing that this alleged error would likely have impacted the outcome, I do not find the applicant has shown that an error did, in fact, take place.
18Once again, the Tribunal found at paragraph 13 of the decision that the applicant did not provide “written submissions with respect to the issues in dispute”. The applicant challenges this finding by claiming his March 24, 2025 letter was meant to be submissions for the hearing. While the letter was entitled “Appeal for adjournment”, the applicant argues:
The letter I wrote on March 24, 2025 is submission letter [sic], eight pages letter with full of [sic] hearing arguments intended to the hearing and with many evidentiary documents attached, cannot be a request for adjournment.
In those days, even today I am seriously messed up. I was obsessively connected with my request for adjournment. I was stark empty and devoid of everything else, nothing come [sic] to my mind except adjournment, due to this situation, I think, absent mindedly I put adjournment as a title on my submission paper. This noticeable error could have been corrected by the tribunal, or I would have been asked to do it again or to replace the title with Submission.
19I recognize that the applicant has been navigating the Tribunal’s processes without the assistance of a lawyer or paralegal, and certain allowances may be made for self-represented parties. For instance, adjudicators and Tribunal staff may find it necessary to provide additional information to a self-represented party. However, these allowances cannot extend to helping a party to better present their arguments and evidence.
20Therefore, while the applicant claims the Tribunal should have understood his March 24, 2025 letter was submissions meant for the written hearing, I do not find the Tribunal was obligated to reach out and have the applicant “replace the title”. Rather, in reviewing the March 24, 2025 letter, I find the clear focus of these arguments was on the denial of an earlier adjournment request—not the substantive issues in dispute.
21For instance, the opening section of the March 24, 2025 letter reads:
This is a follow up to my appeal for adjournment, if the tribunal wants to treat this communication as Submission I don’t mind, however, my preference and the right thing to do is still to permit the adjournment of the case to May 30, 2025
I should not be denied for my request of adjournment because the respondent did not consent
I request adjournment because of serious health problem
22These comments are followed by several pages detailing his health conditions, as well as his complaints about the respondent’s adjusting practices. The applicant does mention that he will need “between $40,000 and $50,000 for my treatment”, and there is a brief reference to his request for the IRB to “be paid for life”. However, the clear focus of the letter is on obtaining an adjournment—a request he reiterates in his closing remarks: “Approve my request for adjournment, issue a subphoena [sic] in the mean time I would be able to recover to the point of doing my representation.”
23The applicant may claim that this letter should have been understood to be submissions for the hearing, but I do not agree. The most reasonable way to interpret this letter was to understand that the applicant was expressing disagreement with the denial of his adjournment request. I do not find the applicant has shown why Tribunal staff or the adjudicator should have followed up to correct the title of the document. No error has been established.
24I also note that this letter was included in the Tribunal’s summary of the applicant’s correspondence from early 2025 (at paragraph 12 of the decision): “The applicant provided multiple responses to the Adjournment Order via correspondence dated March 3, 14, 19, 24, and 27, 2025, setting out his disagreement with the Order.” Again, the Tribunal understood the March 24, 2025 letter to be a response to the adjournment order, not a set of submissions for the written hearing.
Reply Reconsideration Submissions
25The applicant used his reply to add several additional grounds for reconsideration. Though parties are expected to present their full cases in their initial submissions, I again recognize that the applicant is navigating this reconsideration process without legal assistance. As such, I will address these two additional grounds in turn.
26First, the applicant takes issue with the case conference adjudicator’s alleged decision to have an OCF-18 “discarded”. In support of this position, the applicant attached part of his Case Conference Summary.
27Aside from the fact that it is not clear what OCF-18 was allegedly “discarded”, I note that the Tribunal addressed the applicant’s position that there were issues missing from the Case Conference Report and Order in the motion order dated September 9, 2024. Though the order made him feel “ridiculed”, respectfully, I find the applicant has not provided a compelling explanation for how this motion order is incorrect.
28Second, the applicant alleges that certain “mail has been removed from my email”, namely, the attachments to his March 24, 2025 letter. He asks the Tribunal to “investigate” this privacy breach, but the Tribunal does not have the jurisdiction to investigate alleged privacy breaches.
29Taken together, I find the applicant has not demonstrated any grounds for reconsideration based on Rule 18.2(b).
Rule 18.2(a) Arguments
30Though the applicant checked off Rule 18.2(b) on his Request for Reconsideration form, he made several comments in his submissions that appear to engage Rule 18.2(a). Specifically, the applicant made general comments about how he believes the Tribunal denied him “the opportunity of fairness to be heard”.
31As with Rule 18.2(b), the party requesting reconsideration under Rule 18.2(a) must show this test has been met, namely, they must establish that there was a material breach of procedural fairness. I do not find the applicant has met this onus. It is not enough for a party to make general, unsupported comments about the fairness of the proceeding. Rather, a party must show how their right to procedural fairness was breached. I find the applicant has not done so.
CONCLUSION & ORDER
32The applicant’s request for reconsideration is dismissed.
Craig Mazerolle
Vice-Chair
Released: January 9, 2026