Licence Appeal Tribunal
RECONSIDERATION DECISION
Before: Jan Dymond, Vice Chair
Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number: 24-001406/AABS
Case Name: Rayan Alsafadi v. TD General Insurance Company
Written Submissions by:
For the Applicant: Mobina Khan, Counsel
For the Respondent: Stefan Sistilli-Sguazzin, Counsel
OVERVIEW
1On January 6, 2026 (incorrectly dated as January 6, 2025), the applicant requested reconsideration of the Tribunal’s decision dated December 16, 2025 (“decision”).
2The decision fully denied the applicant’s appeal, finding that the applicant’s injuries did not warrant removal from the Minor Injury Guideline (“MIG”). As a result, the Tribunal further determined it was not necessary to consider whether four treatment plans in dispute were reasonable and necessary. The Tribunal also concluded that he was not entitled to a Non-Earner Benefit (“NEB”).
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 challenges the decision on the grounds that:
a) The Tribunal made an error of fact such that the Tribunal would likely have reached a different result had the error not been made. The applicant alleges that the Tribunal made the following errors of fact:
i. In stating that the applicant “did not point to” or “did not provide” evidence in support of his claims; and
ii. By failing to consider evidence that was part of the evidentiary brief.
b) The Tribunal committed a material breach of procedural fairness. The applicant alleges that the Tribunal was materially influenced by submissions of the respondent with regard to procedural non-compliance, and that the applicant was not afforded an opportunity to address any of these perceived issues.
c) The Tribunal made an error of law in its application of the MIG.
5The respondent argues that the Tribunal’s decision should be upheld.
6The applicant does not specify the relief sought.
RESULT
7The applicant’s request for reconsideration is dismissed.
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.
9The applicant raises a number of grounds for reconsideration. I will address them in turn.
The Tribunal did not make an error in fact in finding that the applicant “did not point to” evidence supporting removal from the MIG, entitlement to treatment plans, and NEB
10I find that the applicant has not established that the Tribunal made an error in fact when it stated that the applicant “did not point to” evidence supporting removal from the MIG, or entitlement to the treatment plans and NEB.
11In his reconsideration request, the applicant argues that the Tribunal made an error of fact in stating that he “did not point to” or “did not provide” evidence supporting removal from the MIG, or entitlement to treatment plans and NEB. I will only address the reconsideration request with respect to the phrase “did not point to”, as the Tribunal did not assert that the applicant “did not provide” evidence. The words “did not provide” evidence appeared in the decision only in the summary of the respondent’s position about the applicant’s case.
12The applicant submits that the Tribunal’s finding is factually incorrect, because he filed medical documentation and evidentiary materials that formed part of the hearing record, including disability- and treatment-related evidence referencing ongoing physical, cognitive and psychological symptoms.
13The respondent submits that, while the applicant included medical documentation in his initial submissions, he did not make any actual submissions addressing the MIG, the treatment plans or the NEB, nor did he present evidence that would warrant removal from the MIG.
14The applicant filed his initial submissions for the written hearing on February 26, 2025. He did not file a reply submission for the written hearing.
15I have reviewed the applicant’s submissions for the initial hearing under the heading, “Are the Applicant’s injuries predominantly minor as defined in s.3 of the Schedule and therefore subject to treatment within the $3,500.00 Minor Injury Guideline?” The applicant’s submissions under this heading consist of a reiteration of the MIG definition and its application, as well as the applicant’s claim that the respondent was in breach of s. 38(11) of the Schedule. The only specific reference to the applicant’s condition states:
However, applicant medical evidence clearly indicates that injuries are more severe and persistent. This includes documented ongoing symptoms, the necessity of extensive therapy. The Minor Injury Guideline is not applicable in cases where the injury causes a substantial and enduring impact on a person’s life, which is evident in the applicant case.
16The applicant’s initial submissions with respect to the NEB argue that the applicant’s various medical conditions entitle him to NEB; however, the submission does not point to any contemporaneous medical evidence. The test for an NEB is the complete inability to carry on a normal life. In order to meet that test, an applicant must point to medical evidence supporting their claims with respect to their pre- and post-accident activities, which the applicant in this case failed to do.
17The applicant’s written hearing submissions include a section at the end with the heading “Medical Evidence”. This section includes summaries of documents allegedly contained in the applicant’s documents brief; however, the applicant’s submissions on the MIG, the treatment plans, and NEB do not point to contemporaneous evidence demonstrating the applicant’s entitlements to the benefits claimed, nor do these Medical Evidence summaries refer back to the applicant’s written submissions.
18For example, the medical evidence referenced as Tab 13 of the document brief, (and listed in the summary as Prescription of Dr. Alaa Alasadi, dated January 30, 2023) includes an image of a partial prescription for an unknown party and states:
a. After the motor vehicle collision, the Applicant was prescribed Diclofenac Diethylamine which is a topical medication used to relieve pain and reduce inflammation in muscles and joints. It is commonly found in gels or creams and is part of the nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug.
19This summary does not state how this prescription is relevant to any of the issues in dispute. Summaries of five other tabs (listed in the written hearing submission as # 14, 15, 16, 17, and 20) similarly do not include any discussion as to how the documents support the applicant’s removal from the MIG, entitlement to treatment plans, or NEB. As an aside, I note that the tab numbers referenced in the applicant’s written hearing submissions do not align with the tab numbers in the document brief.
20The onus is on an applicant to demonstrate, on a balance of probabilities, that they are entitled to the benefits they are seeking. I find that it is not the role of an adjudicator, nor would it be procedurally fair to the other party, for an adjudicator to make a party’s case for them by reviewing unreferenced documents to find supportive evidence.
21For the reasons above, I find that the applicant has not established that the Tribunal made an error of fact in finding that the applicant “did not point to” evidence supporting removal from the MIG, entitlement to the treatment plans, and NEB.
The Tribunal did not make an error in fact by failing to consider material evidence
22The applicant further argues that the Tribunal erred in not considering the medical documentation referring to concussion-related symptoms, psychological complaints, physical impairments and functional limitations in its analysis. The applicant submits that this evidence was part of the evidentiary brief and available to the Tribunal as the time of adjudication. The applicant argues that: “A failure to expressly reference evidence in written submissions does not negate its presence on the record.”
23The Divisional Court found in Dooman v. TD Insurance Co., 2025 ONSC 184, at para 50 that, “it is inappropriate for adjudicators to go through a party’s evidence, as suggested by the applicant, to make their case for them.” I agree and find that, in this case, it would be procedurally unfair to the other party if I were to review the appellant’s unreferenced documents to find supportive evidence.
24For the reasons above, I find that the applicant has not established that the Tribunal made an error of fact by not considering evidence that was submitted, but not referred to, by the applicant in his submissions.
The Tribunal did not make an error of law in its application of the MIG
25The applicant submits that the Tribunal made an error in law because it failed to assess whether the cumulative impact of his physical, cognitive and psychological impairments warranted removal from the MIG, as recognized in the Tribunal’s jurisprudence. This ground appears to be a restatement of the applicant’s allegation that the Tribunal committed an error in fact by not addressing material evidence.
26The respondent submits that the applicant has not met his onus because he did not point to contemporaneous medical evidence at first instance or on reconsideration.
27As previously noted, the onus is on the applicant to prove, on a balance of probabilities, his entitlement to the benefits being claimed. The applicant failed to argue that the cumulative impact of his impairments warranted removal from the MIG, nor did he point to contemporaneous evidence in support of that argument in his written hearing brief. Additionally, the applicant’s reconsideration request does not point to any jurisprudence in support of his claim that the Tribunal made an error in law.
28As a result, I find the applicant’s argument is an improper attempt to re-litigate the matter. The ground for reconsideration that the Tribunal erred in law has not been met.
The Tribunal did not commit a material breach of procedural fairness
29I find that the applicant has not established that the Tribunal committed a material breach of procedural fairness.
30As a procedural matter, the Tribunal considered a motion by the respondent alleging that the applicant had failed to comply with disclosure orders and should be barred from relying on certain records. The Tribunal denied the motion.
31The applicant submits in his reconsideration request that the Tribunal’s analysis was materially influenced by these alleged deficiencies, and yet he was not afforded an opportunity to address any of these perceived issues. The applicant does not identify how the Tribunal’s analysis was influenced.
32The respondent submits that the applicant had an opportunity to address the alleged non-compliance in a reply submission but chose not to do so. Further, the applicant does not cite an authority to show that the test for procedural fairness has been applied under Rule 18.2, or how the Tribunal failed to meet this test.
33The applicant does not provide specific details in his reconsideration submissions as to how the Tribunal’s decision was influenced by these alleged deficiencies. Further, the respondent clearly identified the alleged deficiencies in its written hearing submission, dated March 14, 2025. The time for the applicant to address the allegation of non-compliance was prior to the Tribunal’s decision, not after. The applicant had ample opportunity to address the respondent’s allegations in a reply submission for the initial hearing but he chose not to file a reply submission.
34I find that the applicant has not shown the Tribunal committed a material breach of procedural fairness.
CONCLUSION & ORDER
35The applicant’s request for reconsideration is dismissed.
Jan Dymond
Vice-Chair
Tribunals Ontario – Licence Appeal Tribunal
Released: April 10, 2026