Licence Appeal Tribunal
RECONSIDERATION DECISION
Before: Craig Mazerolle, Vice-Chair
Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number: 24-006504/AABS
Case Name: Abbygail Larmond v. Onlia Insurance Company
Written Submissions by:
For the Applicant: Meghan Fyall, Counsel Imtiaz Hosein, Counsel Christos Kakaletris, Counsel
For the Respondent: Kevin S. Adams, Counsel
OVERVIEW
1On January 29, 2026, the applicant requested reconsideration of the Tribunal’s decision released January 8, 2026 (“decision”).
2Stemming from an accident on November 15, 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 written hearing. In the lead up to this hearing, the respondent approved the disputed treatment plans and attendant care benefit (“ACB”). As such, the only remaining issues were the requests for an award and interest.
3The Tribunal laid out its order at paragraph 42:
The respondent is required to pay an award of $13,019.34, which is 15% of the total of the treatment plans and attendant care benefits approved; and
The applicant is entitled to interest on the treatment plans, from May 23, 2024 to the date of approval of the treatment plans, calculated at the prejudgment interest rate described in subsection 128(3) of the Courts of Justice Act.
4The 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.
5The applicant relies on Rule 18.2(b) to support her request. Focusing on the Tribunal’s approach to interest for both the pre-application period and the award, the applicant asks the Tribunal to vary these aspects of the decision.
6The respondent asks the Tribunal to dismiss the request for reconsideration.
RESULT
7The applicant’s request for reconsideration is granted, in part.
8Pursuant to Rule 18.4, the decision is varied at paragraph 42(i) to read as follows:
The respondent is required to pay an award of $13,019.34, which is 15% of the total of the treatment plans and attendant care benefits approved, plus any interest payable under s. 10 of O. Reg. 664.
ANALYSIS
9The 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.
Rule 18.2(b) – Interest for the Pre-Application Period
10Starting with the interest ordered under s. 51, I do not find the applicant has shown that the Tribunal erred in this respect, pursuant to Rule 18.2(b).
11The applicant claims the Tribunal erred by only granting interest for the period following the filing of her