The claimant filed a request for reconsideration arising from a decision in which the Tribunal found that the OCF-10 election by the claimant was final, and that the claimant was not entitled to a non-earner benefit. Adjudicator Watt dismissed the request for reconsideration, noting that the claimant was simply trying to re-argue its case, and that a reconsideration was not an opportunity to do so.
The claimant filed a request for reconsideration arising from a decision in which the Tribunal found that that he was not entitled to income replacement benefits. Vice-Chair Marzinotto dismissed the request for reconsideration, finding no error or misapprehension of evidence in the Tribunal’s decision.
The insurer filed a request for reconsideration arising from a decision in which the Tribunal found that CAT Assessments were not a medical benefit and therefore their funding did not fall within the $50,000 limit under section 18 of the SABS. Adjudicator Victor dismissed the insurer’s request for reconsideration and granted the claimant’s request for costs in the amount of $100, noting that the insurer had only raised the same arguments it made at the hearing and was essentially trying to re-litigate the decision based on the same arguments.
The claimant filed a request for reconsideration arising from a decision in which the Tribunal found that her injuries fell within the MIG. Adjudicator Lake dismissed the request for reconsideration on the grounds that the request was not submitted within 21 days of the date of the decision pursuant to Rule 18.1, as the claimant provided no explanation for her late filing. Adjudicator Lake noted that even if she were incorrect in finding that the claimant’s request for reconsideration was time-barred, she would alternatively dismiss the reconsideration request on its merits, as the Tribunal did not make an error such that it would likely have reached a different conclusion had the error not been made.
The claimant sought reconsideration of the Tribunal’s denial of mileage expenses related to her case manager. Vice-Chair Lester upheld the previous decision and dismissed the reconsideration. She noted that the claimant re-argued her case from the previous decision, and did not explain how the decision erred in fact or law. She also did not argue as to how the mileage expenses were reasonable or necessary.
The claimant filed for reconsideration on a previous decision in which the Tribunal ruled that the claimant was statute barred from proceeding with her appeal of the denial of IRBs, and the Tribunal’s decision not to extend the limitation period under section 7 of the LAT Act. Adjudicator Johal allowed the case to proceed, noting that a delay of 13 days was not considered a significant delay by any means. The claimant had also given evidence that it was her intention to appeal the denial of IRBs, and that the delay was not her fault as an employee at the law firm failed to follow her instructions and file the appeal when instructed to do so. The insurer also failed to provide any evidence as to the prejudice it would suffer should the matter be allowed to proceed, nor did it provide any submissions with respect to section 7 of the LAT Act.
The claimant requested an extension under section 7 of the LAT Act to extend the limitation period beyond the two year statutory limits to dispute his entitlement to IRBs. The insurer denied IRBs on February 15, 2015, the claimant then initiated a FSCO dispute with a mediation scheduled for May 28, 2016. Claimant’s counsel submitted a Request for Failed Mediation Report to FSCO on May 26, 2016 and FSCO closed the file on May 28, 2016. The two year limitation expired on February 15, 2017 and the claimant filed with the LAT on March 31, 2017. Vice Chair Flude concluded that the claimant had failed to prove there was a clear intention to appeal during the limitation period, as he had been undeniably aware of the denial letter and limitation since at least February 6, 2017 when settlement discussions took place and did not move expeditiously to file a dispute. The adjusting notes from this insurer also noted that the claimant’s counsel had not yet decided whether to appeal the denial, and would speak to the claimant and get back to the adjuster. The dispute was not filed until over a month later on March 31, 2017. Vice Chair Flude also noted that the claimant had failed to provide any evidence that should his extension be allowed to proceed that he would be entitled to IRBs, instead providing a statement claiming he was not working and on social assistance with no evidence of the same.
The claimant requested reconsideration of the Tribunal’s previous decision which precluded her from proceeding to a hearing on IRBs for failure to attend IEs. IRBs were terminated based on orthopaedic and occupational therapy IE reports. The claimant provided the insurer with further medical documentation, and in turn, the insurer arranged for further IE reports to address the new information. The claimant refused to attend, arguing that the medical documents themselves were enough information to determine entitlement. The insurer placed the claimant in non-compliance. The claimant then applied to the LAT to determine IRB entitlement. Vice Chair Lester denied the request for reconsideration, noting that the claimant gave no specific examples of errors in law with regard to her alleged compliance with the IE requests.
The claimant filed a request for reconsideration following a decision in which the Tribunal concluded that he was not entitled to NEBs or various medical benefits. The claimant argued that the Tribunal erred in law by not engaging the Heath analysis and not considering evidence tendered at the hearing. Adjudicator Punyarthi dismissed the reconsideration request, noting that the Tribunal correctly cited the test for NEBs and appropriately weighed the evidence tendered at the hearing. It was beyond the scope of a reconsideration to engage in a re-weighing of the evidence.
The claimant filed a request for reconsideration following a decision in which the Tribunal concluded that he was not entitled to NEBs or various medical benefits. The claimant argued that the Tribunal erred in law by not engaging the Heath analysis and not considering evidence tendered at the hearing. Adjudicator Punyarthi dismissed the reconsideration request, noting that the Tribunal correctly cited the test for NEBs and appropriately weighed the evidence tendered at the hearing. It was beyond the scope of a reconsideration to engage in a re-weighing of the evidence.
150 York Street, Suite 1800
Toronto, Ontario M5H 3S5
416.507.1850
© 2020 Thomas Gold Pettingill LLP Disclaimer | Privacy Policy | Statement of Principles
Subscribe to get TGP’s case summaries straight to your inbox
Subscribe to get TGP’s case summaries straight to your inbox
150 York Street, Suite 1800
Toronto, Ontario M5H 3S5
416.507.1850
© 2020 Thomas Gold Pettingill LLP