RECONSIDERATION DECISION
Before: Harouna Saley Sidibé
Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number: 24-000077/AABS
Case Name: Rui Hu v. Allstate Insurance Company of Canada
Written Submissions by:
For the Applicant: Zoe Meditskos, Paralegal
For the Respondent: Karina Dziuba, Counsel
OVERVIEW
1On December 22, 2025, the respondent requested reconsideration of the Tribunal’s decision dated December 8, 2025 (“decision”).
2The decision resulted from a written hearing regarding entitlement to statutory accident benefits under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule – Effective September 1, 2010 – (including amendments effective June 1, 2016) (the “Schedule”). I found that:
- The applicant’s injuries are not predominantly minor, and therefore, he is entitled to treatment beyond the monetary limit of the Minor Injury Guideline (“MIG”).
- The applicant is entitled to the approved portions of the December 10, 2022, chiropractic treatment plan, specifically, four physiotherapy sessions (including the initial assessment, evaluation report, and the costs of completing the OCF‑18), as well as the full amount of the May 6, 2022, psychological assessment plan, plus interest.
- The applicant is not entitled to 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 respondent seeks reconsideration pursuant to Rules 18.2(a) and (b). The respondent requests an order setting aside the Tribunal’s decision, along with an order directing the issuance of an amended decision based on the submissions it served and filed on March 21, 2025. As an alternative, it is seeking an order for a new written hearing allowing for new submissions from both parties.
5The applicant submits that the request for reconsideration should be denied.
RESULT
6The respondent’s request for reconsideration is granted on the basis of Rule 18.2(b).
7Pursuant to Rule 18.4, the outcome of the reconsideration is that the decision is confirmed.
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
9I find that I made a factual error in concluding that the respondent had not filed submissions. I am satisfied that the respondent filed its submissions and support materials and that this error was material.
10The respondent argues that this factual error led the Tribunal to overlook its evidence and arguments, including medical opinions challenging the applicant’s claims. I agree that the omission was significant and that it would likely have affected the outcome of the decision.
11The respondent asserts that the decision was based on the mistaken belief that it had not filed any submissions, which denied it a fair chance to be heard. It states that it uploaded its materials to the Secure Content Management (“SCM”) portal on March 21, 2025, and sent an email to the Tribunal the same day requesting confirmation, but it never received an acknowledgment. An affidavit from its representative confirms both the upload and the follow-up email.
12The respondent further relies on Deveen Pusey's affidavit, which confirms that the submissions and Certificate of Service were uploaded, that counsel emailed the Tribunal for acknowledgment, that no acknowledgment was received, and that the SCM portal later indicated the materials were recalled or shredded. The respondent argues that a technical or administrative error prevented its submissions from being properly received and considered, resulting in prejudice. Because the Tribunal never notified it of any deficiency, the respondent asserts it was denied a meaningful opportunity to have its evidence and arguments reviewed.
13The applicant submits that no error of fact occurred because the decision found that he met the burden of proof on the record before it and that his evidence was credible, consistent, and sufficient to establish entitlement.
14The applicant acknowledges that the respondent served written submissions before the hearing but argues that no material procedural unfairness occurred; that reconsideration is not an appeal on the merits; that the respondent seeks to re‑argue the case; and that, in any event, the applicant met the burden of proof.
15I find that the original decision was based on a factual error because it incorrectly concluded that the respondent had not submitted any documents. The record shows that the respondent submitted its documents and supporting materials on March 21, 2025, but a technical failure in the SCM portal made those materials unavailable to the Tribunal at the time of the decision. This was not just an administrative mistake but a significant factual error that directly impacted the evidence before the Tribunal. Given the nature and importance of the respondent’s submissions, which included written statements and evidence that addressed the key issues in dispute, their absence significantly distorted the record and the subsequent analysis. Therefore, I find that the conclusion that the respondent did not submit anything was factually incorrect and had a material impact.
16An identified error does not automatically justify reconsideration. Rule 18.2(b) requires an assessment of whether correcting the error could reasonably have affected the result.
17The respondent’s submissions, dated March 21, 2025, addressed the key issues in dispute, including the MIG classification, the chiropractic treatment plan, the psychological assessment treatment plan, and the claim for an award. The respondent also attached medical documentation that appears to contradict the applicant’s evidence regarding diagnosis, impairment severity, and the reasonableness or necessity of the treatment.
18Having reviewed the reconsideration record, I find that the respondent’s materials create a genuine and reasonable possibility of a different outcome on at least some of the substantive issues.
19I find that, had I reviewed the respondent’s submissions and accompanying medical opinions, there was a reasonable possibility that one or more conclusions, particularly concerning MIG status and treatment entitlement, might have been different.
20Rule 18.2(b) requires that the error be such that the Tribunal would likely have reached a different result had the error not been made. The test is not whether the Tribunal would in fact have reached a different result. That determination is made under Rule 18.4, which provides that, following reconsideration and an opportunity for submissions, the Tribunal may dismiss the request or confirm, vary, or cancel the decision, or order a rehearing.
21For these reasons, the respondent’s request for reconsideration is granted pursuant to Rule 18.2(b). I will now address the appropriate outcome under Rule 18.4.
22Because the reconsideration is granted under Rule 18.2(b), it is unnecessary to address the respondent’s arguments under Rule 18.2(a).
Rule 18.4 – Outcome of the Reconsideration
23I am confirming my previous decision. No variation is warranted.
24On reconsideration, I have now taken into account the respondent’s written submissions, which were not before me at the time of the original decision.
MIG Issue
25The respondent argues that the applicant’s injuries are within the MIG. However, the decision notes that on July 4, 2023, the applicant informed Dr. Kim Lazare, the applicant’s family doctor, that “he had been experiencing stress, difficulty concentrating while driving, flashbacks of the accident, nightmares, irritability, anxiety, sleep disturbances, and avoidance of long-distance driving. Dr. Lazare diagnosed partial PTSD and referred the applicant to a psychotherapist for psychoeducation.”
26The respondent has provided no psychological evidence to contradict the opinion of Jian Su, a registered psychotherapist under the supervision of Dr. Olvera Bojic-Ognjenovic. Su diagnosed the applicant with “Major Depressive Disorder with Mixed Anxiety and Depressed Mood, along with a Specific Phobia of travel and the outdoors. The applicant also shows trauma symptoms such as nightmares, avoidance, hypervigilance, and emotional sensitivity.” The same report recommends immediate psychological support to aid his recovery and improve his prognosis. In line with the Schedule, psychological impairments place an applicant outside the MIG. I therefore confirm my original findings.
December 10, 2022, Treatment Plan – Chiropractic/Active/Acupuncture Services
27The respondent argues that the applicant did not demonstrate physical impairments requiring the proposed treatment. In the decision, I accepted that the applicant required physiotherapy, as supported by the family doctor, but that the evidence did not justify chiropractic treatment. The respondent’s submissions do not introduce any new clinical evidence that contradicts this reasoning.
28I therefore confirm that the applicant is partially entitled to the plan for chiropractic services (i.e., the cost of four physiotherapy sessions, including an initial assessment, evaluation report, and the costs of completing the OCF-18), plus interest.
May 6, 2022, Treatment Plan – Psychological Assessment
29The respondent asserts that the applicant had not expressed any complaints that would support the need for the proposed psychological assessment. However, as noted in the decision, the applicant was diagnosed with PTSD, anxiety, and depression by Dr. Lazare, and he was referred to a psychotherapist. The respondent has not produced medical evidence showing the assessment was unnecessary. The 2023 psychological assessment further validates the need for earlier evaluation.
30I therefore confirm that the applicant is entitled to the plan for the psychological assessment, plus interest.
Outcome
31Having now considered the respondent’s previously excluded submissions, I find that none of the arguments or materials provided would have led to a different outcome on any of the issues decided. Although the reconsideration process corrected an error of fact regarding the presence of the respondent’s submissions, the substance of those submissions does not materially undermine the findings in my decision. The respondent provides no new medical or factual evidence that contradicts the diagnoses relied upon, nor do its submissions alter the treatment entitlement analysis. Even after considering the respondent’s submissions, I am satisfied, on a balance of probabilities, that the applicant continues to meet the onus of establishing removal from the MIG and entitlement to portions of the disputed treatment.
32Accordingly, under Rule 18.4, I confirm the Tribunal’s decision. The applicant’s entitlements, as previously ordered, remain in full force and effect.
CONCLUSION & ORDER
33The respondent’s request for reconsideration is granted on the basis of Rule 18.2(b).
34Pursuant to Rule 18.4, the outcome of the reconsideration is that the decision is confirmed.
Harouna Saley Sidibé Adjudicator
Released: March 25, 2026