Ontario's Licence Appeal Tribunal has refused to reopen a decision that shut down several accident benefit claims against Allstate Insurance Company of Canada.

The Tribunal released its reconsideration decision on September 10, 2026. It reviewed a May 15, 2026 ruling that had barred a claimant from pursuing two chiropractic treatment plans and a chronic pain assessment, because he missed the two-year window for disputing the denials. That same ruling found a psychological assessment, psychological services and a driving evaluation were not payable under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule, and denied the claimant interest.

The claimant asked Vice-Chair Tyler Moore to set the decision aside, pointing to alleged procedural unfairness and errors of law or fact serious enough to have changed the result. Those grounds carry a high bar. As Moore put it, reconsideration is "not an opportunity for a party to re-litigate its position."

The claimant's case rested on four points: that the Tribunal ignored case law requiring insurers to properly justify a benefit denial before the limitation clock starts running, that it never checked whether the benefit-denial letters explained the medical reasoning behind the refusals, that it skipped an analysis of whether those letters met the Schedule's notice requirements, and that it misread his arguments about a separate provision covering treatment outside the Minor Injury Guideline.

Moore rejected each point. He found the original decision had already addressed the guideline argument separately from the notice argument. The claimant, he noted, had previously been found to fall within the Minor Injury Guideline in an earlier Tribunal decision and had dropped that dispute rather than pursue it further. With the guideline question settled, the Tribunal did not need to weigh whether the treatment plans, which proposed care beyond the guideline's scope, were reasonable and necessary.

On the notice question, Moore found the claimant had never spelled out, at the original hearing, how the denial letters for the psychological and driving evaluation plans fell short. Without that argument on the record, he added, the Tribunal had no basis to conclude the insurer's notices were deficient. Moore also found the original decision had applied the right legal test - drawn from Smith v. Co-operators General Insurance Co. - to the chiropractic and chronic pain assessment denials, with reasons detailed enough to support the result.

Moore dismissed the reconsideration request in full, finding the Tribunal had engaged meaningfully with the claimant's core arguments the first time around.