RECONSIDERATION DECISION
Before: Craig Mazerolle, Vice-Chair
Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number: 24-006934/AABS
Case Name: Clint Lynes v. Wawanesa Mutual Insurance Company
Written Submissions by:
For the Applicant: Ognjen Miketic, Counsel
For the Respondent: Louise Kanary, Counsel
OVERVIEW
1On November 4, 2025, the applicant requested reconsideration of the Tribunal’s decision released October 14, 2025 (“decision”).
2Stemming from an accident on October 19, 2021 and a request for benefits made pursuant to the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule – Effective September 1, 2010 (including amendments effective June 1, 2016) (“Schedule”), the dispute was set down for a written hearing. In the decision, the Tribunal dismissed the applicant’s claims for a neurological assessment, an award, and interest. The Tribunal found the applicant did not file any submissions or evidence, so it concluded that he did not meet his evidentiary onus.
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.
4By claiming that he did file submissions and evidence with the Tribunal, the applicant relies on Rule 18.2(a) and Rule 18.2(b) to support his request for reconsideration. He is asking the Tribunal to set aside the decision and to issue a new decision based on the parties’ submissions.
5The respondent takes no position on the reconsideration request, but, if the Tribunal does decide to set aside the decision, it will rely on the submissions and brief it previously filed.
RESULT
6The applicant’s request for reconsideration is granted.
7Pursuant to Rule 18.4, the decision is cancelled. The matter shall be reheard by a new adjudicator based on the parties’ previously filed submissions and evidence.
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.
9I am satisfied that the applicant has established grounds for reconsideration under Rule 18.2(b).
10The relevant dates in the parties’ dispute were detailed at paragraphs 3 – 5 of the decision (emphasis added):
In the case conference report and order that was released on October 22, 2024, the Tribunal ordered the dispute to proceed to a written hearing. The Tribunal scheduled a written hearing on July 11, 2025. Notice of the written hearing was e-mailed to the parties on October 29, 2024, using the contact information provided.
The applicant’s initial submissions were due on June 11, 2025.
The respondent filed its written submissions on July 2, 2025.
11As part of his reconsideration request, the applicant included a copy of an e-mail his representative sent to the respondent and the Tribunal on June 11, 2025. The body of the e-mail stated: “Please find the Applicant’s Written Submissions and Document Brief…”, and it included an attachment entitled: “Applicant’s Written Submissions Clint Lynes.pdf”.
12The respondent confirmed in its reconsideration submissions that it received a copy of the applicant’s initial written submissions and brief on June 11, 2025.
13Taken together, I am satisfied that the applicant has demonstrated that the Tribunal erred in its determination that he did not file submissions for the July 11, 2025 written hearing. Further, since his submissions and evidence were not considered in rendering the decision, correcting this error would likely impact the outcome.
14Having established grounds for reconsideration under Rule 18.2(b), I am then satisfied that the most appropriate way to remedy this error is to have the matter reheard by a new adjudicator. To ensure the efficient resolution of this dispute, the rehearing will be based on the parties’ previously filed submissions and evidence.
CONCLUSION & ORDER
15The applicant’s request for reconsideration is granted.
16Pursuant to Rule 18.4, the decision is cancelled. The matter shall be reheard by a new adjudicator based on the parties’ previously filed submissions and evidence (dated June 11, 2025 for the applicant; filed July 2, 2025 for the respondent).
17I am not seized.
Craig Mazerolle
Vice-Chair
Released: January 5, 2026