RECONSIDERATION DECISION
Before:
Craig Mazerolle, Vice-Chair
Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number:
24-002328/AABS
Case Name:
Mohamad Almohamad v. Certas Home and Auto Insurance Company
Written Submissions by:
For the Applicant:
Areej Almohamad, Parent
For the Respondent:
Andrea Lim, Counsel
OVERVIEW
1On December 8, 2025, the applicant requested reconsideration of the Tribunal’s decision released April 14, 2025 (“decision”).
2The applicant is a minor. One of his parents filed the request for reconsideration on his behalf.
3Stemming from an accident on September 15, 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 three-day videoconference hearing. According to the decision, the applicant advised the Tribunal on the final day of the hearing that all but one issue had been resolved, i.e., the only remaining issue was entitlement to an attendant care benefit (“ACB”) for the period of February 8 to May 5, 2022. The Tribunal concluded that the applicant was not entitled to the ACB for this period.
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 relies on all three Rule 18.2 criteria to support his request. Claiming that the issues were removed “without the informed consent of his legal guardian”, the applicant asks the Tribunal to: “Reconsider and reinstate all benefits that were withdrawn”.
6The respondent asks the Tribunal to dismiss the request for reconsideration.
RESULT
7The applicant’s request for reconsideration is dismissed.
ANALYSIS
8The test for reconsideration under Rule 18.2 involves a high threshold. 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 their position where they disagree with the Tribunal’s decision, or with the weight assigned to the evidence.
9Of importance to this request, the Tribunal narrowed the issues in dispute on the final day of the hearing (at paragraphs 4 and 5 of the decision):
At the outset of the hearing, in accordance with the Case Conference Report and Order (the “CCRO”), the issues in dispute were attendant care benefits, three treatment plans for medical services and assistive devices, an expense claim for prescription medication, an award under s. 10 of Reg. 664 and interest on any overdue payment of benefits.
On the third and final day of the hearing, the applicant advised that all disputed issues had been resolved and/or withdrawn except for a narrowed claim for attendant care benefits…
10The applicant’s request for reconsideration is mainly premised on the position that his parents were not aware that these issues had been removed until they received a copy of the Tribunal’s decision. What is more, the applicant claims the Tribunal sent his former counsel a copy of this decision, but she did not share it with his parents until several months after it had been released.
11The applicant also claims that his former counsel persuaded his parents to allow him to testify during the hearing, and that his testimony “caused him unnecessary stress and placed him in a vulnerable and difficult position as a minor”.
12Finally, the applicant submits that, prior to the accident, his mother helped financially support the family by preparing and selling food. The applicant’s care eventually meant she was “forced to stop working entirely”. To support this position, the applicant provides the Tribunal with copies of documents from a professional attendant care provider that the family hired. According to the applicant, his mother was able to start working again after the family hired this professional (a point he demonstrates by attaching a copy of a cheque made out to his mother, dated January 9, 2026).
13The respondent challenges the request for reconsideration by claiming that many of the arguments made about the applicant’s former counsel’s conduct are outside of the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. The respondent also claims that the applicant’s parents were present during the hearing when the issues were removed, and that an Arabic language interpreter was on hand.
14In reply, the applicant claims that, while an interpreter was present during the hearing, his parents were not informed “through interpretation or otherwise” that the issues had been removed.
15In support of his reply, the applicant provided the Tribunal a letter from the respondent (dated October 9, 2024), along with a series of three invoices from Physio Art Rehab. In the letter, the respondent stated that it had approved three treatment plans from Physio Art Rehab, as well as an OCF-6 in the amount of $89.26. However, the invoices show that the clinic was not paid until a few weeks after the hearing. He also submitted several records to support his claim that his mother was able to start working after the family hired a professional attendant care provider, i.e., the mother’s cheque and several timesheets from this service provider.
16On February 27, 2026, the applicant sent several OCF-21 forms to the Tribunal.
17The applicant checked off all three Rule 18.2 criteria on his Request for Reconsideration form. Yet, aside from a specific reference to Rule 18.2(c) in his reply, his submissions do not clearly slot these reconsideration grounds under any of the Rule 18.2 criteria. The applicant does not have the assistance of a lawyer or paralegal, so I have considered whether any of his proposed reconsideration grounds may trigger the criteria under Rule 18.2.
18I also note that, in both his initial submissions and reply, the applicant made references to settlement discussions. These discussions are presumptively covered by settlement privilege, meaning that they cannot be used as a part of the adjudication of this reconsideration request. I have not considered this aspect of the applicant’s submissions.
19I do not find the applicant has established any grounds for reconsideration.
20First, the complaints raised by the applicant about his former counsel fall outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. The Tribunal only has jurisdiction over the parties’ accident benefits dispute.
21Second, despite his arguments that his parents did not consent to this removal, I find the applicant has not shown how the Tribunal’s decision to remove the medical benefits, award, and interest issues from the dispute was incorrect or procedurally unfair. The respondent provided an excerpt of the hearing transcript, and it shows that the applicant’s former counsel clearly stated that the issues had been removed.
22Lawyers and paralegals are considered “officers of the court”. This means the statements they make to courts and tribunals are presumed to be truthful. This presumption is especially important when a lawyer or paralegal is speaking about interactions with their own clients. After reviewing the relevant section of the transcript, I find the Tribunal correctly accepted counsel’s clear statement about the removal of these issues. I further find there was no breach of procedural fairness in how the Tribunal conducted itself in this regard. Again, it was entitled to accept this statement from applicant’s counsel to be true.
23Further, I note that the October 9, 2024 letter from the respondent shows that the three treatment plans and OCF-6 that were listed as issues in the CCRO were approved prior to the hearing. Though I accept that Physio Art Rehab did not receive payment for the three treatment plans until February 2025, it seems the parties had come to a resolution of these issues in October 2024, i.e., a few months before the start of the hearing.
24Finally, I do not find the applicant has shown how the Tribunal’s assessment of his mother’s alleged economic loss meets any of the criteria under Rule 18.2. I interpret the applicant’s arguments on this point to be that, since his mother was unable to conduct her pre-accident work due to the applicant’s need for attendant care, she experienced an economic loss. He supports this position by showing that she received a cheque for the work she started performing after the family hired a professional service provider.
25The mother’s economic loss arguments and evidence were addressed in the decision at paragraphs 17 – 20:
The applicant bears the burden of proving entitlement to attendant care benefits on a balance of probabilities.
During the hearing, the applicant’s mother, [A.A], testified that:
i. she has provided most of the assistance/services to the applicant post-accident regarding his activities of daily living;
ii. she has provided the assistance/services as a family member and not in the course of any employment, occupation or profession in which she would ordinarily have been engaged, but for the accident; and
iii. she has not been employed outside the home in any capacity before or since the accident.
In closing argument, applicant’s counsel stated that there were no invoices or any other evidence of economic loss sustained by [A.A] in providing assistance/services to the applicant post-accident, including for the three-month period in issue.
Based on the foregoing, I find the applicant is required, under ss. 19(1) and 3.7(e)(iii)(B) of the Schedule, to show that attendant care expenses have been incurred regarding the period in issue, due to [A.A] sustaining an economic loss as a result of providing attendant care services to the applicant. I further find that the applicant has not met his burden to establish any economic loss by [A.A] in providing such services during the period in issue.
26To start, and like the comments I made above about the removal of the issues, the Tribunal was entitled to accept applicant’s counsel’s comments that “there were no invoices or any other evidence of economic loss sustained” by the mother. I see no error or unfairness in the Tribunal’s reliance on this submission.
27Second, the applicant claims there is new evidence that was not before the Tribunal when it released the decision that shows his mother experienced an economic loss, namely, the mother’s cheque and the timesheets from the service provider. While I accept that these records were not before the Tribunal when it rendered the decision in April 2025 (as these documents are from late 2025 and early 2026), I do not find the applicant has met the three-part test under Rule 18.2(c).
28To trigger Rule 18.2(c), a party must establish the following three things:
a. There is “evidence that was not before the Tribunal when rendering its decision”;
b. This evidence “could not have been obtained previously by the party now seeking to introduce it”; and,
c. This evidence “would likely have affected the result”.
29Even if I accept that these records were not before the Tribunal when rendering its decision (and that they could not have been obtained previously), I do not find the applicant has shown this new evidence “would likely have affected” the outcome of the ACB.
30As noted above, the ACB was being requested for the period from February 8 to May 5, 2022. Considering the new evidence relates to attendant care and employment from late 2025 and early 2026, I find the applicant has not shown how these records would likely have impacted the Tribunal’s finding about economic loss during the first half of 2022. The connection between these two periods is too tenuous for me to be satisfied that the introduction of these documents to the hearing would have likely impacted the outcome of the ACB.
31In a more general sense though, the applicant’s submissions about his mother’s economic loss appear to be a request to re-weigh the evidence about the ACB. The reconsideration process is not a venue for asking the Tribunal to re-weigh evidence that was considered at first instance. Adjudicators are tasked with considering the evidence and arguments when determining whether a party has met their case. Unless a party can show this analysis was factually or legally incorrect, these assessments will not be reconsidered.
32I am sympathetic to the applicant and his family. They are attempting to navigate the Tribunal’s procedures without the assistance of a lawyer or a paralegal. I also recognize that his parents feel as though this hearing process did not allow them to be fully heard during a crucial point in their son’s recovery. However, despite these challenges, the applicant still has the onus to show that his request meets the test for reconsideration under Rule 18.2.
33For the reasons above, I find the applicant has not established any grounds for reconsideration.
CONCLUSION & ORDER
34The applicant’s request for reconsideration is dismissed.
Craig Mazerolle
Vice-Chair
Released: March 18, 2026