Consumer Advisory Panel https://www.fsrao.ca/engagement-and-consultations/terms-reference
15 Things Only A Crash Survivor Can Tell You
Canadian insurance industry still at risk from mega-catastrophe, study warns
Man shocked he had to pay OHIP for hospital stay after winning lawsuit
Ontario man suing prison guard after alleged assault caught on camera in prison parking lot
Nearly a year after legalization, many police forces slow to use new THC blood charges for impaired driving
[1] This request for reconsideration was filed by the applicant, [the applicant]. It arises out of a decision in which I found [the applicant] catastrophically impaired[1] on the basis that he sustained a marked impairment under the mental and behavioural category of the Guides.[2] I determined that [the applicant] was not entitled to post-104 income replacement benefits, or to attendant care, housekeeping and home maintenance benefits. While I did find [the applicant] entitled to a pre-104 income replacement benefit, I found it was offset by TD’s claim for repayment and therefore not payable. A number of medical and rehabilitation benefits were also the subject of the 10-day in-person hearing, however the parties were able to settle these issues prior to the release of the decision.
[2] Despite my finding that he sustained a catastrophic impairment because of the accident, [the applicant] submits that I made significant errors of law and fact that directly affect the outcome of the decision. First, [the applicant] submits that I erred in not awarding post-104-week income replacement benefits. Second, he submits that it was an error to deny him attendant care benefits and to deem them not incurred. Third, he argues that it was an error to deny the housekeeping and home maintenance benefit. Fourth, [the applicant] argues that it was an error to find no basis for an award under s.10 of O. Reg. 664 enacted under the Insurance Act.
[3] [The applicant] requests the Tribunal reverse my decision on the denied benefits and award all the benefits outlined above. Pursuant to Rule 18.1 of the Tribunal’s Common Rules of Practice and Procedure, I have been delegated responsibility to decide this matter.
RESULT
[4] [The applicant]’s request for reconsideration is dismissed.
ANALYSIS
[5] The grounds for a Request for Reconsideration are contained in Rule 18 of the Tribunal’s Common Rules of Practice and Procedure. A request for reconsideration will not be granted unless one of the following criteria are met:
a) The Tribunal acted outside its jurisdiction or violated the rules of natural justice or procedural fairness;
b) The Tribunal made a significant error of law or fact such that the Tribunal would likely have reached a different decision;
c) The Tribunal heard false or misleading evidence from a party or witness, which was discovered only after the hearing and would have affected the result; or
d) There is new evidence that could not have reasonably been obtained earlier and would have affected the result.