RECONSIDERATION DECISION
Before: Melanie Malach, Adjudicator
Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number: 24-004641/AABS
Case Name: Chi Sheng Yang v. The Dominion of Canada General Insurance Company
Written Submissions by:
For the Applicant: Sareena Samra, Counsel
For the Respondent: Christopher McCormack, Counsel
OVERVIEW
1On February 17, 2026, the applicant requested reconsideration of the Tribunal’s decision dated January 26, 2026 (“decision”).
2The Tribunal found that the applicant is barred from proceeding with the issue of income replacement benefits (“IRBs”) as he failed to dispute their denial within the 2-year limitation period. The Tribunal further found that the applicant is not entitled to the treatment plan for chiropractic services, dated March 12, 2024, the treatment plan for a psychiatric rebuttal assessment and an occupational therapy assessment dated March 4, 2024, interest or 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 applicant seeks reconsideration pursuant to Rule 18.2(a) and (b) of the Tribunal’s finding that the applicant is barred from proceeding with the issue of IRBs as he failed to dispute the denial within the two-year limitation period. The applicant seeks an order reversing the decision.
5The respondent submits that the applicant’s request for reconsideration should be dismissed as he has not proven that there are grounds for a reconsideration under Rule 18.2.
RESULT
6The applicant’s request for reconsideration is dismissed.
ANALYSIS
7The 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(a) – Material Breaches of Procedural Fairness
8I find that the applicant has not established a material breach of procedural fairness pursuant to Rule 18.2(a).
9The applicant submits that the Tribunal breached his right to procedural fairness because the adjudicator “failed to even canvass if there was a proper preliminary issue regarding the limitation period. The lack of medical adjudication of the IRB by the insurer was never considered”. This was the entirety of the applicant’s submissions in this regard.
10The Case Conference Report and Order (“CCRO”) lists two preliminary issues in dispute, one of which was “Is the applicant barred from proceeding to a hearing for the following benefit: Income Replacement Benefits, because the applicant failed to dispute their denial within the 2-year limitation period?”
11The Tribunal addressed the issue of whether the applicant failed to dispute the denial of IRBs within the two-year limitation period. A complete analysis of this issue and the relevant case law was conducted by the Tribunal in reaching its decision. The applicant has not provided any evidence or submissions to support the claim that the limitation period was not a proper preliminary issue before the Tribunal. The limitation period was listed as an issue in the CCRO and both parties made submissions in regard to this issue. I do not find that the applicant has provided sufficient submissions as to how the Tribunal’s decision on this issue amounts to a lack of procedural fairness.
12Procedural fairness is based on the principle that parties have the right to be heard. As such, parties challenging a decision based on procedural fairness must show how the Tribunal’s process negatively impacted this right. Though the applicant may claim that the Tribunal did not properly assess the evidentiary record, he has not shown how the procedure used to render the decision was unfair. The applicant has not directed me to any aspect of the hearing process that impeded his ability to meet his onus.
13For the reasons outlined above, I find the applicant has not established a material breach of procedural fairness, which would trigger Rule 18.2(a).
Rule 18.2(b) – Errors of Fact or Law
14I find that the applicant has not shown that the Tribunal erred in fact or law pursuant to Rule 18.2(b).
15The applicant submits that the Tribunal “failed in applying the case law to the details of the case before the Tribunal”. He claims that the Tribunal “applied the case law of Varriano v. Allstate Insurance Company, 2023 ONCA in error and unfairly disregarded the submissions of the applicant and the applicant’s Affidavit”. He submits that the Tribunal committed an error of law when applying the factors of Smith v. Co-Operators General Insurance Co., 2022 SCC 30 (“Smith v. Co-Operators”) and Traders v. Rumball, 2025 ONSC 779 (“Traders”), in finding that the denial letter of IRBs was clear and unequivocal”. He submits that the denial was not clear and unequivocal, and the Tribunal provided no basis for the decision”. The applicant submits that the Tribunal erred by distinguishing the decision in Traders and misapplied the facts. The applicant further submits that the Tribunal did not refer to the “non-prejudice caused to the respondent in her decision” and it did not correctly apply the four factors in Manuel v. Registrar, 2021 ONSC 1492 (“Manuel”).
16The respondent submits that the applicant’s submissions consist entirely of bald assertions without specific reference to the evidence submitted at the hearing, the decisions he is relying on regarding the limitation period, the subject Tribunal decision, or the case-law criteria for a reconsideration request to be granted. The applicant is attempting to re-argue the relevance of case law that was reviewed by the Tribunal and determined to be distinguishable on the facts. The respondent further submits that the applicant has not cited any new case law or provided any specific arguments to support his claims that the Tribunal erred in its consideration of case law.
17The reconsideration process is not an opportunity for a party to re-litigate its position where it disagrees with the weight assigned to the evidence. Rather, to engage in Rule 18.2(b), the requesting party must show that a factual or legal error occurred, and that this error would likely have impacted the outcome. I find that an applicant may disagree with the outcome of the analysis of the Tribunal, but it is not enough to say that the Tribunal should have interpreted one’s case in a different way. Instead, the party requesting reconsideration must establish that a legal or factual error was committed.
18I do not agree with the applicant’s argument that the Tribunal applied the decision in Varriano in error and disregarded his submissions and Affidavit. I find that the Tribunal applied Varriano and did so to reject a point of law, not the applicant’s Affidavit. At paragraph [22] of the Tribunal decision, the Tribunal agreed with the respondent that the Court of Appeal decision in Varriano is applicable to the present case. The Tribunal concluded that based on this decision, a denial based on a claimant’s return to work can be a valid denial for the purposes of s. 56 of the Schedule. While the applicant argues that the Tribunal applied this case in error, he has not provided any submissions to support this assertion. He has not addressed what specific evidence the Tribunal allegedly ignored or pointed the Tribunal to evidence refuting the findings of the Tribunal. I therefore do not find that an error in applying the decision in Varriano was made.
19I also do not agree with the applicant’s submission that Tribunal committed an error of law in applying the factors in Smith and Co-Operators and Traders because the denial was not clear and unequivocal. I find that the applicant has not specifically pointed the Tribunal to an error. While the applicant may disagree with the outcome of the analysis, it is not enough to say the Tribunal should have interpreted one’s case in a different way. The party requesting reconsideration must establish that a legal or factual error was committed.
20At paragraph [10] of the Tribunal decision, the Tribunal set out the requirements articulated by the Supreme Court of Canada in Smith v. Co-Operators in determining if a notice is clear and unequivocal. At paragraphs [19] to [21], the Tribunal provides an analysis of how the denial letter complied with the principles set out in Smith v. Co-Operators applicable to the facts of the case. At paragraphs [24] and [25] of the Tribunal decision, an analysis of the Divisional Court decision in Traders is set out and the reasons why the Tribunal distinguished the applicant’s case to the facts in that decision are explained. While the applicant submits that the Tribunal erred by distinguishing the decision in Traders and misapplied the facts, this is a bald assertion without any further particulars or specifics as to what the error was, and which facts were misapplied. Again, while the applicant may disagree with the outcome of this analysis, it is not enough to say that the Tribunal committed an error. I find that the applicant’s submissions amount to a request to re-weigh the evidence considered at first evidence and an attempt to relitigate his submissions.
21Finally, with regard to the applicant’s argument that the Tribunal incorrectly applied the factors in Manuel and “did not refer to the non-prejudice caused to the respondent”, I do not agree that an error of law or fact has been committed. An analysis of s. 7 of the LAT Act was conducted by the Tribunal at paragraphs [27] to [30] of the decision. I find that all four factors set out in Manuel were considered by the Tribunal. Specifically with respect to the prejudice to the respondent, the Tribunal stated, “…there is also prejudice to the respondent in allowing a claim to go forward, particularly given the length of the delay”. I therefore do not agree with the applicant that the Tribunal “did not refer to the non-prejudice caused to the respondent”. I find that the applicant has not provided any particular submissions as to how the Tribunal incorrectly applied the factors in Manuel and I therefore find that no error was made by the Tribunal.
22For the reasons outlined above, I find that the applicant has not established any errors in fact or law, which would trigger Rule 18.2(b).
CONCLUSION & ORDER
23The applicant’s request for reconsideration is dismissed.
Melanie Malach
Adjudicator
Released: April 23, 2026