RECONSIDERATION DECISION
Before:
Craig Mazerolle, Vice-Chair
Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number:
24-013197/AABS
Case Name:
Paul Thompson v. Chubb Insurance Company of Canada
Written Submissions by:
For the Applicant:
Nancy Young, Counsel
For the Respondent:
Bogdan Miscevic, Counsel
OVERVIEW
1On January 30, 2026, the respondent requested reconsideration of the Tribunal’s decision released January 12, 2026 (“decision”).
2Stemming from an accident on February 6, 2022 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 videoconference hearing. In the resulting decision, the Tribunal found the applicant was entitled to an income replacement benefit (“IRB”), as well as several treatment plans and interest. The Tribunal denied 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 respondent relies on Rule 18.2(b) to support its request. It is asking the Tribunal to rehear the application.
5The applicant asks the Tribunal to dismiss the request for reconsideration.
RESULT
6The respondent’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.
8The respondent raises several alleged errors with the decision. I will address them in turn.
Timeline of Events and Surveillance Evidence
9First, the respondent claims that the Tribunal confused the dates of two accidents that involved the applicant. According to the respondent, these errors raise a serious question over whether the Tribunal used the correct timeline of events to ground its conclusions.
10Both parties agree that the applicant was involved in accidents on February 5, 2020 and December 12, 2020. The earlier of the two accidents is the subject accident for this claim.
11In several places in the decision, the Tribunal includes dates that do not align with this timeline. For instance, when discussing the parties’ occupational therapy evidence, the Tribunal states at paragraph 26 that the subject accident took place on “February 5, 2021”. Then, in paragraph 35, the Tribunal appears to have not only confused the year when the February 2020 accident took place, but the December 2020 accident is erroneously referred to as the “subject accident”:
I find that the applicant meets this standard because as noted earlier he is substantially unable to do any work and continues to experience the effects of the December 2020 subject accident in addition to the exacerbation of these impairments from the subsequent February 2021 (non-subject) accident.
12I accept that these dates are incorrect. However, I am not satisfied that the respondent has met the second stage of the Rule 18.2(b) test, i.e., it has not shown that correcting these errors would likely have impacted the outcome.
13In paragraphs 14 – 44 of the decision, the Tribunal conducted a comprehensive assessment of the parties’ evidence and arguments to explain its findings about the IRB. The timing of the two accidents played a significant role in this analysis. In reviewing these reasons, I am satisfied that, despite what appears to be several typos concerning the applicant’s accidents, the Tribunal clearly understood the relevant timeline. Moreover, the timing of these accidents was then applied to the evidence to assess the applicant’s claims of causation and IRB entitlement. Most notably, the Tribunal plainly and correctly laid out the dates of these accidents when summarizing the parties’ positions near the start of this section of the decision, a sign that it proceeded from a correct understanding of the timeline (at paragraphs 15 and 16, emphasis added):
The applicant submits that he meets the eligibility tests for both pre-104 and post-104 income replacement benefits. The applicant further submits that but for the subject accident, he could be working, and that the February 5, 2020 subject accident contributed materially to his inability to work both in the pre-104 week period and in any job in the post-104 week period after the subject accident.
The respondent argues that the second accident the applicant had on December 12, 2020 was the real cause of his injuries, that the applicant has no impairments that prevent essential work-related tasks, and that neurological, physiological and psychological tests show that the applicant did not have a substantial inability to perform his job or, after 104 weeks, any job. The respondent also relies on surveillance which they say shows that the applicant could walk without assistance, bend and raise his hands after the subject accident.
14A decision-maker’s reasons are not assessed on the standard of perfection. As the corrective function under Rule 17 implies, there is an assumption that an adjudicator’s reasons will occasionally include some typographical errors. Put another way, despite an adjudicator’s best efforts, slips of the digital pen still occur. In this case, I am satisfied that these minor errors did not meaningfully impact the Tribunal’s analysis, as its extensive reasons show that it was attuned to the correct timeline of events. These reasons also show that it was alive