RECONSIDERATION DECISION
Before:
E. Louise Logan, Vice-Chair
Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number:
23-014254/AABS
Case Name:
Felix Domchik v. CUMIS General Insurance Company
Written Submissions by:
For the Applicant:
Arthur Domchik, Representative
For the Respondent:
Peter Durant, Counsel
OVERVIEW
1On February 17, 2026, the applicant requested reconsideration of the Tribunal’s decision dated August 6, 2025 (“decision”).
2By way of background, the applicant was involved in an automobile accident on June 19, 2020 and was denied benefits by the respondent under the Statutory Accidents Benefits Schedule – Effective September 1, 2010 (including amendments effective June 1, 2016 (the “Schedule”). The applicant, who was represented by counsel, applied to the Tribunal for resolution of the dispute.
3A case conference was held on April 30, 2024, and the resulting Case Conference Report and Order (“CCRO”) identified the issues in dispute. The issues included a preliminary issue of whether the applicant was barred from proceeding to a hearing for all the benefits claimed in his application because he failed to attend an insurer’s examination (“IE”) under s. 44 of the Schedule. The substantive issues in dispute were an income replacement benefit (“IRB”), a treatment plan for physiotherapy services, interest and an award. The CCRO set out procedural orders for both the preliminary and substantive issues hearings.
4In accordance with the CCRO, the preliminary issue was heard before the substantive issues. In a preliminary issue decision, dated August 23, 2024, the Tribunal found the respondent’s notices of July 25 and November 19, 2023 did not meet the requirements of s. 44(5) of the Schedule. It determined that the applicant could proceed with his application for the substantive issues in dispute.
5A written hearing on the substantive issues in dispute was set for January 17, 2025. On December 16, 2024, a few days before the applicant’s submissions for the substantive issues hearing were due, the applicant’s counsel removed himself as the representative of record with the Tribunal. This was done in accordance with Rule 24 of the Licence Appeal Tribunal Rules, 2023 (“Rules”).
6In the decision dated August 6, 2025, the Tribunal determined that the applicant had not filed submissions for the substantive issues hearing and therefore was not entitled to an IRB, the treatment plan for physiotherapy services, interest and an award.
7As noted above, the applicant filed a reconsideration request on February 17, 2026 in relation to the August 6, 2025 decision. This reconsideration request was 175 days after the deadline set out in Rule 18.1. In a Reconsideration Order dated August 23, 2024, the Tribunal granted the applicant an extension of time to file the reconsideration request and set out deadlines for reconsideration submissions from the parties. These submissions are now before me as I consider the applicant’s reconsideration request.
RESULT
8The applicant’s request for reconsideration is granted, pursuant to Rule 18.2(a).
9Pursuant to Rule 18.4, the decision is cancelled. A rehearing of the substantive issues in dispute shall take place before a different adjudicator.
ANALYSIS
10The grounds for a request for reconsideration are found in Rule 18.2. 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.
11The 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.
12The applicant is seeking reconsideration pursuant to Rules 18.2(a) and (b). He submits that the Tribunal should order a rehearing of the substantive issues in dispute.
13The respondent submits that the applicant’s request for reconsideration should be dismissed and the decision upheld.
Rule 18.2(a) – Material breach of procedural fairness
14I find that the applicant has established grounds for reconsideration pursuant to Rule 18.2(a). My reasons are as follows.
15The applicant submits that his representative removed himself two days before the deadline for his written submissions. He submits that his former counsel did not provide him with his file and that this left him, an unsophisticated applicant with a language barrier, without the ability to navigate the Tribunal’s proceedings.
16He submits that on December 17, 2024, a family member of the applicant emailed the Tribunal’s Case Management Officer (“CMO”). The December 17, 2024 email reads, in part, as follows:
Left a voicemail for you. I am a family member of Felix Domchik. Felix's English is poor so he asked me to write to you.
We received notification from Felix's lawyer yesterday (December 16, 2024) that he filed to be removed.
Our understanding is that the LAT submission deadline is either today (December 17, 2024) or tomorrow (December 18, 2024) and we do not know what to do.
We do not see how it is fair for Felix's lawyer to remove himself a day before LAT submissions are due.
Can you please grant Felix an extension to file submissions so he can figure out what is going on and/or find another lawyer.
Would appreciate your guidance as to how to proceed.
17The applicant’s family member sent another email on January 6, 2025. This email indicates that the applicant believed he could not file any materials until an issue related to the retainer agreement with his former counsel had been resolved. He asked that the CMO provide the January 6, 2025 email to the hearing adjudicator to explain why he could not file anything. He also requested, if it was possible, to ask the hearing adjudicator to review the written submissions already submitted with his application and for the preliminary issue hearing.
18The CMO responded on January 7, 2025 by providing a link to the Tribunal’s adjournment request form. The CMO further stated:
I don’t know who the adjudicator will be for the upcoming hearing, but once assigned, all pertinent submissions/documents will mist [sic] assuredly be reviewed.
19The applicant submits that, despite the assurance of the CMO, the Tribunal did not consider the documents previously filed and that this would likely have affected the outcome of the decision.
20The applicant also submits that he is a self-represented party who was denied procedural fairness. He submits that the applicant’s former representative continued to withhold his file, the applicant does not understand the matter, the CMO assured him the Tribunal would review the documentary evidence before it, and he believed it would do so. He cites caselaw from the Tribunal that supports his position that procedural fairness includes participatory rights, and that an applicant should not suffer because of the mistake of their counsel where the Tribunal can rectify the mistake: see Bagla v. TD Ins. Meloch Monnex, 2022 CanLII 30690 (ON LAT).
21The applicant also cites the Divisional Court decision in Fernandez v. Commonwell Mutual Insurance, 2024 ONSC 5180, where the Court found that the applicant, who demonstrated a complete inability to understand the accident benefits scheme and represent herself, was denied procedural fairness when the Tribunal denied an adjournment following the breakdown of her solicitor-client relationship on the eve of the hearing.
22The respondent submits that there was no denial of procedural fairness or participatory rights. It submits that the applicant had every right to participate, and did so, to a point. While the respondent acknowledges that the removal of the applicant’s counsel on December 16, 2024, when the deadline for submissions was December 18, 2024, was “less than ideal timing”, the Tribunal followed its own Rules and did not deny procedural fairness. The applicant did not file submissions prior to the deadline and was aware of the deadline being missed.
23The respondent further notes that its submissions were served on the applicant on January 2, 2025, and that the applicant would have been aware at that point that he had failed to make submissions and his appeal could not proceed. The applicant did not file reply submissions, despite having until January 10, 2025 to do so. He did not seek an adjournment, despite being advised by the Tribunal that he could do so and given a link to the relevant form. He did not bring a motion to alter the CCRO timelines. The respondent submits that, while the applicant did not file submissions or a reply, the Tribunal did not deny his right to do so. He was limited by his own choices. The respondent argues that ineffective representation is not a basis for reconsideration, and, if the concern is with this former representative, then this complaint is properly dealt with in another forum.
24I find that the applicant has established grounds for reconsideration pursuant to Rule 18.2(a). I make this finding for two reasons.
25First, I accept that the applicant, who suddenly found himself self-represented two days before the submission deadline, was ill-equipped to navigate the Tribunal’s process. Despite these challenges, the evidence shows that the applicant managed, through a family member, to request an extension of time to figure out what was going on, make submissions and obtain new counsel. I acknowledge that the applicant was sent an adjournment request form by the Tribunal and did not complete this form. I nonetheless find, in the circumstances, that the applicant took reasonable steps to contact the Tribunal and navigate its processes to communicate his need for more time to obtain counsel and to make submissions.
26The applicant’s steps to communicate his need for more time to obtain new counsel appear not to have been known to the hearing adjudicator. Specifically, these steps are not reflected in the decision, which states at paragraphs 4 and 5:
4On December 16, 2024, the applicant’s representative at the time filed a Removal of Representative form with the Tribunal and copied the applicant and the respondent.
5There has been no further correspondence from the applicant and the Tribunal has not received a request for an adjournment or a Notice of Withdrawal.
27At paragraph 9, the decision states:
[9 ]There has been no indication that the applicant intended to obtain new representation or that he took any steps to do so after December 16, 2024. There has also been no motion made seeking to extend the applicant’s submission deadlines, or request for an adjournment.
28I acknowledge that the hearing adjudicator may not have been aware of the applicant’s correspondence and request. However, this does not diminish the Tribunal’s overall duty of procedural fairness. This finding is supported by Fernandez, where the Court found that the self-represented applicant was denied procedural fairness when the Tribunal denied an adjournment following the breakdown of her solicitor-client relationship on the eve of the hearing. In this case, as set out above, the applicant requested more time to make submissions and obtain counsel. In addition, there are indications in the record before me that, as in Fernandez, the applicant has limited English and limited capacity to understand the Tribunal’s processes and represent himself. For example, in the preliminary issue decision, it is noted that the neuropsychological report of Dr. Rowe indicates that the applicant participated in the examinations with the assistance of a Russian interpreter. Following the removal of counsel, a family member also advised the Tribunal that the applicant’s English was poor. Further, there are indications in the preliminary issue decision that the applicant may be vulnerable, due to psychological impairments.
29Taken together, I find that the evidence indicates that the applicant had limited English skills and capacity to represent himself, such that a family member requested more time to figure out what was going on and to obtain new counsel. This request appears not to have been known to the hearing adjudicator and is not reflected in the decision. I find that, in these circumstances, the applicant did not receive a fair determination of the matter on its merits due to a material breach of procedural fairness.
30Second, I note that when the applicant’s family member contacted the Tribunal to request that information previously filed be considered by the Tribunal, the family member was given an assurance by the CMO that “all pertinent submissions/documents will [most] assuredly be reviewed”. I find that, based on this communication, the applicant may have reasonably understood that the Tribunal would consider the documents and submissions already provided. At a minimum, it was reasonable to expect that the applicant’s request to the CMO would be communicated to the hearing adjudicator, which it appears it may not have been. It was only once the decision was released, that the applicant realized that the documents and submissions previously filed with the Tribunal were not considered as part of the hearing. Rather, at paragraph 11 of the decision, the Tribunal noted that no submissions had been filed by the applicant. This was a material breach of procedural fairness.
31In reaching my conclusion, I have considered the respondent’s submission that the applicant had the opportunity to participate, was aware of the deadlines, and chose not to participate. I do not agree that the applicant’s lack of participation in the hearing was a choice. In my view, the respondent’s argument does not reflect the fact that the applicant, faced with the sudden loss of his counsel, was ill-equipped to understand the necessity of completing the form asking for an adjournment, make submissions on a complex matter, and understand the implications of missed deadlines when he reasonably thought that submissions and documents filed earlier in the proceeding were being considered.
32I have also considered the respondent’s submission that ineffective representation of counsel is not a basis for reconsideration, and that, if the concern is with the applicant’s former representative, then this is properly dealt with in another forum. I agree the Tribunal is not the forum for addressing the applicant’s concerns with his former counsel. However, it is still the case that, once counsel was removed, there was a denial of procedural fairness in proceeding with the hearing when the applicant’s family member requested an extension of time to obtain new counsel. This was a breach the Tribunal can remedy through the reconsideration process set out in its Rules.
33For the reasons set out above, I find that the applicant has established grounds for reconsideration pursuant to Rule 18.2(a). As I have found that there are grounds for reconsideration pursuant to Rule 18.2(a), I do not need to consider the other reconsideration arguments.
Rule 18.4 – Outcome of Reconsideration
34I now turn to the outcome of the reconsideration. Pursuant to Rule 18.4, I am cancelling the decision and ordering a rehearing of the substantive issues in dispute before a different adjudicator. In my view, a rehearing is required to ensure a fair hearing on the merits of the substantive issues in dispute.
CONCLUSION & ORDER
35The applicant has established grounds for reconsideration, pursuant to Rule 18.2(a).
36Pursuant to Rule 18.4, the decision is cancelled. I am ordering a rehearing of the substantive issues in dispute before a different adjudicator.
37Within 30 days of the release of this decision, the Tribunal shall canvass the parties for dates for a case conference so that the Tribunal may issue procedural and administrative orders for the rehearing of the substantive issues in dispute.
38I am not seized.
___________________
E. Louise Logan
Vice-Chair
Released: May 1, 2026