RECONSIDERATION DECISION
Before: Craig Mazerolle, Vice-Chair
Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number: 24-001300/AABS
Case Name: John W Zandstra v. TD General Insurance Company
Written Submissions by:
For the Applicant: Rasha El-Tawil, Counsel
For the Respondent: Nathan Tischler, Counsel
OVERVIEW
1On November 14, 2025, the applicant requested reconsideration of the Tribunal’s decision released October 27, 2025 (“decision”).
2Stemming from an accident on July 4, 2021 and a request for benefits made pursuant to the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule – Effective September 1, 2010 (including amendments effective June 1, 2016) (the “Schedule”), the parties participated in a written hearing. In the decision, the Tribunal dismissed the applicant’s claim for an attendant care benefit (“ACB”), three treatment plans, an award, and interest.
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 relies on Rule 18.2(b) to support his request. The request is limited to the ACB, and the applicant is asking the Tribunal to vary the decision to find he is entitled to this benefit.
5The respondent opposes the applicant’s request for reconsideration.
RESULT
6The applicant’s request for reconsideration is dismissed.
ANALYSIS
7The test for reconsideration under Rule 18.2 involves a high threshold, and the requesting party must show how or why the decision falls into one of the categories in Rule 18.2. 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.
8I find the applicant has not established any grounds for reconsideration.
9The applicant raises several alleged errors with the decision. I will address them in turn.
10First, the applicant claims the Tribunal did not consider relevant evidence that found he relies on his wife to help with his daily tasks. Specifically, the applicant highlights evidence from both his treating OT, Kaitlyn Ollson, and the respondent’s OT, Danny Horban.
11I do not accept this ground for reconsideration. In the decision, the Tribunal based its ACB findings on the relative weight it assigned to the parties’ OT reports. Specifically, it preferred (at paragraph 26) “the report of Mr. Horban over Ms. Ollson’s because of the applicant’s own self-reporting to Mr. Horban”. Though the applicant may claim that more attention should have been paid to his wife’s assistance, this submission appears to be a request to re-weigh the parties’ evidence. As noted above, the reconsideration process is not a venue for asking the Tribunal to re-weigh evidence that was considered at first instance.
12I also note that there was no clear indication in the applicant’s written submissions that he wanted the Tribunal to focus on his wife’s assistance in determining his entitlement to the ACB. Parties are expected to put their best foot forward during the hearing, as reconsideration is not a venue for presenting new arguments that could have been reasonably raised at an earlier stage.
13Second, in light of his serious brain injury, the applicant argues that the Tribunal erred when it “conflated [his] awareness of medical restrictions with [his] functional ability to complete activities of daily living”. By relying on his self-reporting, the applicant claims the Tribunal ignored objective evidence of his limitations, namely, those detailed in the parties’ catastrophic assessments.
14I do accept that the applicant highlighted several cognitive impairments when discussing his medical condition, e.g., impaired memory. These memory issues were also highlighted when he quoted Ms. Ollson’s attendant care assessment (dated October 26, 2023) in his written hearing submissions. However, the connection between these cognitive impairments and his ability to reliably self-report his limitations was not expressly raised in the applicant’s written submissions. Once again, parties are discouraged from raising new arguments on reconsideration.
15Further, though the applicant may disagree with the Tribunal’s reliance on his self-reported limitations, this complaint appears to be another dispute with the Tribunal’s weighing of the evidence. Adjudicators have the right to consider different aspects of an expert opinion when assessing its relative weight, in this case, the Tribunal’s preference for Mr. Horban’s report due to the applicant’s self-reports. Unless a requesting party can show that a factor is legally impermissible, these evidentiary assessments will not be disrupted on reconsideration.
16Third, the applicant argues that the Tribunal incorrectly relied on the catastrophic assessment from Shahla Kara, OT (dated June 28, 2023), as opposed to the findings contained in Ms. Ollson’s attendant care assessment. According to the applicant, this analysis fails “to appreciate the broader context and distinct purposes of attendant care assessments versus catastrophic assessments”.
17Aside from the incongruence between this ground and the applicant’s argument that more weight should have been placed on the parties’ catastrophic assessments, I do not find the applicant has shown there is an error in this part of the decision. The Tribunal assessed Ms. Kara’s report as part of its ACB analysis at paragraphs 25 and 26:
The applicant’s own assessor, S. Kara, Occupational Therapist, stated in her report dated June 28, 2023, that the applicant admitted to performing personal care activities independently and at the same pace as he did pre-accident.
When comparing the parties’ OT reports, I prefer the report of Mr. Horban over Ms. Ollson’s because of the applicant’s own self-reporting to Mr. Horban that he currently is unaware of any medical restrictions for his activities. Also, the applicant’s own assessor, Ms. Kara, explained in her report that he performs his personal care independently as before the accident. Therefore, the applicant’s self-reporting and the findings of his prior OT assessor do not support the finding that ACBs are reasonable and necessary.
18The Tribunal did not simply choose to rely on Ms. Kara’s report over Ms. Ollson’s assessment. Rather, it observed that the findings made in the former did not align with those made in the latter. This finding was open to the Tribunal to make.
19I also do not see any error with the Tribunal relying on evidence of functional limitations from a source other than an attendant care assessment. The applicant has not provided any legal authorities to support this position, and, as noted above, it is not open to a party to ask for a different weighing of the evidence as part of the reconsideration process.
20Finally, by citing Luluquisin v. Aviva Insurance Co. of Canada, 2024 ONSC 5369 (“Luluquisin”), the applicant briefly submits that a significant claim requires “proper and complete analysis, rather than summary or conclusory reasons”.
21I accept that Luluquisin is binding on the Tribunal, and I recognize that this Divisional Court case highlights the importance of fulsome and responsive reasons. However, the applicant has the onus to show how the criteria under Rule 18.2 have been met. Aside from quoting a passage from Luluquisin that speaks to the importance of ACBs (and the corresponding need for comprehensive reasons), the applicant has not explained how the Tribunal failed to provide such reasons in this case. While I accept that the reasons are brief, the Tribunal provides an explanation for why the applicant’s ACB claim was not successful, namely, the evidence better aligns with the respondent’s OT report.
22Taken together, I find the applicant has not established an error that meets the standard of Rule 18.2(b).
CONCLUSION & ORDER
23The applicant’s request for reconsideration is dismissed.
Craig Mazerolle
Vice-Chair
Released: January 16, 2026