RECONSIDERATION DECISION
Before:
Craig Mazerolle, Vice-Chair
Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number:
24-002623/AABS
Case Name:
Vincenzo Commisso v. Definity Insurance Company
Written Submissions by:
For the Applicant:
Christina Trotta, Counsel
For the Respondent:
Misra Duka, Counsel
OVERVIEW
1On December 4, 2025, the applicant requested reconsideration of the Tribunal’s decision released November 27, 2025 (“decision”).
2Stemming from an accident on December 7, 2023 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 found the applicant is held to the Minor Injury Guideline (“MIG”).
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(c) to support his request for reconsideration.
5The respondent asks the Tribunal to dismiss the request.
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 do not find the applicant has established grounds for reconsideration under Rule 18.2(c).
9To trigger Rule 18.2(c), the requesting party must establish three elements:
There is “evidence that was not before the Tribunal when rendering its decision”;
This evidence “could not have been obtained previously by the party now seeking to introduce it”; and,
This evidence “would likely have affected the result”.
10Following a complaint of shoulder pain he made to his family doctor on January 31, 2025, the applicant underwent a right shoulder MRI on March 3, 2025. The applicant reviewed the results of the MRI with his family doctor on April 10, 2025, during which time he learned the imaging revealed a supraspinatus moderate full-thickness insertion tear.
11Considering the Tribunal has found full-thickness tears warrant removal from the MIG, the applicant claims this new evidence would likely have affected the result of the decision. The applicant further submits that, since he first learned about this tear during a consultation on April 10, 2025, he could not have obtained this MRI report prior to the due date for his initial written submissions, i.e., March 26, 2025.
12The respondent disputes the request, submitting that the applicant is attempting to “introduce evidence that clearly was available in advance of the written hearing date”. Additionally, by pointing to the 15-month period between the accident and the MRI, it claims this new evidence would not likely affect the outcome. Specifically, the respondent argues the applicant has not shown how the tear is accident-related.
13I accept that the MRI report was not before the Tribunal when rendering the decision, and I am further willing to accept the applicant’s position that evidence of a full thickness tear (if it is related to the accident) would likely affect the outcome of the MIG analysis. However, I do not find the applicant has shown why this evidence “could not have been obtained previously”.
14The relevant dates for the written hearing are as follows:
a. Applicant’s initial submissions due: March 26, 2025
b. Respondent’s submissions due: April 11, 2025
c. Applicant’s reply submissions due: April 18, 2025
d. Written hearing date: April 25, 2025
15Though I accept that his initial submissions were due several weeks before his consultation on April 10, 2025, the applicant was still aware of this tear one day prior to the due date for the respondent’s submissions, and over a week before his reply was due. What is more, the decision was not issued until November 27, 2025, over seven months after his consultation. The applicant knew about this relevant piece of evidence, yet he did not take any steps to introduce it to the hearing record until after the decision was issued.
16The applicant claims in his reconsideration reply that it would have been unfair to the respondent for him to submit the MRI report after his initial written submissions were due. While I accept that this timeline might have impaired the respondent’s right to procedural fairness, the applicant has not explained why he did not seek permission from the Tribunal to submit this new evidence prior to the release of the decision. For instance, he has not explained why he could not have filed a Notice of Motion seeking an extension of the parties’ submission deadlines.
17Parties are expected to put their best foot forward during the hearing. I find the applicant has not satisfied me that this new evidence “could not have been obtained previously”, especially as it became available months before the decision was released.
CONCLUSION & ORDER
18The applicant’s request for reconsideration is dismissed.
Craig Mazerolle
Vice-Chair
Released: January 27, 2026