Licence Appeal Tribunal
RECONSIDERATION DECISION
Before: Craig Mazerolle, Vice-Chair
Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number: 23-004899/AABS
Case Name: Harpreet Grewal v. Peel Mutual Insurance Company
Written Submissions by:
For the Applicant: Imtiaz Hosein, Counsel Arifah Razack, Articling Student
For the Respondent: Jonathan Schrieder, Counsel
OVERVIEW
1On November 7, 2025, the applicant requested reconsideration of the Tribunal’s decision released October 17, 2025 (“decision”).
2Stemming from an accident on November 7, 2016 and a request for benefits made pursuant to the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule – Effective September 1, 2010 (the “Schedule”), the parties participated in a videoconference hearing. In the decision, the Tribunal found the applicant was not catastrophically impaired under Criterion 8. However, the Tribunal determined that the applicant was entitled to treatment plans for catastrophic impairment assessments, OT services, assistive devices, and a psychological assessment, plus interest. The rest of the medical benefits were denied, along with the applicant’s request for 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 relies on Rule 18.2(a) and Rule 18.2(b) to support her request. She is asking the Tribunal to find she is catastrophically impaired and entitled to the disputed benefits. In the alternative, she is seeking a new hearing.
5The applicant also filed a Notice of Constitutional Question