RECONSIDERATION DECISION
Before:
Craig Mazerolle, Vice-Chair
Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number:
24-009529/AABS
Case Name:
Fifena Sinclair v. Primmum Insurance Company
Written Submissions by:
For the Applicant:
Neisha Moses, Paralegal
For the Respondent:
No submissions provided
OVERVIEW
1On November 13, 2025, the applicant requested reconsideration of the Tribunal’s amended decision released October 24, 2025 (“decision”).
2Stemming from an accident on August 5, 2023 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 application, as it found the applicant did not file any submissions or evidence.
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 they filed a Notice of Withdrawal with the Tribunal on July 9, 2025, the applicant relies on Rule 18.2(b) to support the request for reconsideration. The applicant is asking the Tribunal to vary the decision to find that his application was withdrawn.
5The respondent did not provide any responding submissions, but it wrote to the Tribunal to state it does “consent that a Notice of Withdrawal was provided on July 9, 2025” (e-mail dated November 23, 2025).
RESULT
6The applicant’s request for reconsideration is granted.
7Pursuant to Rule 18.4, the decision is cancelled.
8The application is withdrawn. The file is closed with the Tribunal.
ANALYSIS
9The 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.
10I am satisfied that the applicant has established grounds for reconsideration under Rule 18.2(b).
11The relevant timeline of events was set out at paragraphs 3 and 4 of the decision:
In the Case Conference Report and Order (“CCRO”), released on December 2, 2024, the Tribunal ordered the dispute to proceed to a written hearing. The Tribunal scheduled a written hearing for August 8, 2025. Notice of this written hearing was emailed to the parties on December 10, 2024, using the contact information provided.
The applicant’s initial written submissions were due on July 9, 2025. The respondent’s submissions were due on July 25, 2025. On October 15, 2025, the Tribunal wrote to both parties and advised that it had not received submissions from either party.
12As part of the reconsideration request, the applicant included a copy of an e-mail his representative sent to the respondent and the Tribunal on July 9, 2025. The body of the e-mail stated: “Please find attached our duly completed Notice of Withdrawal.” The e-mail included an attachment entitled: “Notice of Withdrawal dated July 9, 2025”.
13As noted above, the respondent confirms it received the Notice of Withdrawal on July 9, 2025.
14Taken together, I am satisfied that the applicant has demonstrated that the Tribunal erred by not recognizing that it had received a copy of the applicant’s Notice of Withdrawal prior to the written hearing on August 8, 2025. Further, since the Tribunal issued a decision when it did not have the jurisdiction to do so, I am satisfied that correcting this error would likely impact the outcome.
15I am then satisfied that the most appropriate way to remedy this error is to cancel the decision, pursuant to Rule 18.4. In its place, the applicant’s Notice of Withdrawal is accepted, and the Tribunal’s file is closed.
CONCLUSION & ORDER
16The applicant’s request for reconsideration is granted.
17Pursuant to Rule 18.4, the decision is cancelled.
18The application is withdrawn. The file is closed with the Tribunal.
Craig Mazerolle
Vice-Chair
Released: January 6, 2026