In Adam v. Aviva General Insurance Company (Div Court, 2024) the Divisional Court dismissed an appeal of a LAT SABS decision "which found that she failed to demonstrate entitlement to post-104 week income replacement benefits (“IRBs”) pursuant to s.6(2) (b) of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule – Effective September 1, 2010 (“SABS”)".
Here the court held that new leading case law did not "constitute new evidence" for reconsideration purposes:
Issue 1: Did LAT err in law in finding that new binding case law, Varriano v. Allstate Insurance Company of Canada (“Varriano”), 2023 ONCA 78, is not evidence for the purpose of a request for reconsideration under LAT Rule 18.2(d)?
[5] A new decision from a higher court does not constitute new evidence that can be relied upon for a reconsideration request: see Jhajj v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), 1995 CanLII 3583 (FC), [1995] 2 FC 369, where the court rejected a similar request for reconsideration because recognizing new jurisprudence as evidence could have the effect of (1) inundating lower courts with reconsideration requests (paras. 32-34), and (2) could subject settled cases to re-litigation, contrary to established legal principles (paras. 35-37).
The author has waived all copyright and related or neighboring rights to this Isthatlegal.ca webpage.
