The claimant sought reconsideration of a decision that his claims for ACBs were barred due to the limitation period. He made no submissions on the original decision because his counsel at the time unilaterally removed himself as counsel without notice. Four months after the decision was issued, the claimant retained new counsel, who filed a Notice of Motion to extend the time limit to seek reconsideration. Vice Chair Maedel granted the motion and extended the deadline to provide a Request for Reconsideration. The claimant was 74 years old and relied on his former counsel to file the written preliminary submissions. Vice Chair Maedel accepted that the claimant was unaware of the preliminary issue decision and the seriousness of the decision until he retained new counsel in July 2021. He also accepted that the claimant had bona fide intention to appeal the denial of benefits between February to July 2021. Vice Chair Maedel rejected the insurer’s argument that the motion should be dismissed because the claimant failed to show a bona fide intention to reconsider within the 21 day period prescribed by the Rules. He found that the Tribunal was mandated to ensure a fair process to permit effective participation by all parties and to ensure that decisions are based on the merits of the dispute as per Rule 3.1 (a). In this case, the claimant had provided no preliminary submissions through no fault of his own and a preliminary decision was rendered without his participation. Vice Chair Maedel indicated that other than a delay of the application between April and December 2021 as well as the cost of responding to the Request for Reconsideration, there was little prejudice to the insurer. Notwithstanding the extension of time granted to the claimant, Vice Chair Maedel indicated the claimant would be required to address the specific criteria for reconsideration pursuant to Rule 18.2 in seeking to reverse the Tribunal’s initial decision.
Menu