In Lapointe v. John Doe, the Plaintiff was injured in a hit and run accident, and commenced legal proceedings against ICBC, naming them as a nominal Defendant. Prior to trial, counsel for the Plaintiff brought an application for summary judgment on liability under Rule 9-6 of the Rules of Court, which included an application to strike the portion of the Defendant’s Response relying on the Section 24 defence. This is what is known as the “reasonable efforts” defence, wherein ICBC typically argues that the Plaintiff did not make “reasonable efforts” to ascertain the identity of the unknown driver/owner. The Master ruled that the Plaintiff had in fact made the required “reasonable efforts”, and, as such, this would not be a live issue at trial.
At the present application, ICBC’S lawyer made an application for the same Master to reconsider his earlier decision, arguing that a miscarriage of justice would likely occur, as the original decision of the Master was based on a misapprehension of the law. ICBC’S lawyer argued that one day before the Master’s original decision, the Court of Appeal Case in Century Services Link v. Leroy ruled that the striking of the Section 24 defence is not a remedy available under Rule 9-6.
The Master had jurisdiction to hear the application, as his original Order had yet to be entered. However, the Master refused to reconsider his decision. The Master firstly noted that this was not an application based on fresh evidence, which is the general test for reconsideration. Further, in addition to distinguishing the Century Services Link case on its’ facts, the Master also noted that the proper remedy would have been for ICBC’S lawyer to appeal the original decision of the Master. ICBC’S lawyer had already done this. The Master ruled that it was an abuse of the court process to make an application to have his earlier decision reconsidered, while at the same time an appeal had already been filed.
 This is obviously not a case where there is proposed fresh evidence; rather, this is a case where ICBC submits that I have misapplied the law. The proper remedy for a master making an error in law is to appeal the decision.
 The plaintiff disagrees that the law was misapplied.
 ICBC submits that it has established that a miscarriage of justice would likely occur without a re-hearing because the original decision was based on a misapprehension of the law. On the other hand, the plaintiff submits that a miscarriage of justice would likely occur by forcing the plaintiff to re-litigate an issue which, based on all of the material to date, ICBC has no chance of succeeding on.
 This does not seem to be a situation such as was facing the Court of Appeal in Century Services; rather, it was an application after examination for discovery on admissible affidavit evidence decided in favour of the plaintiff, the result of which will serve to shorten the trial.
 The issue of whether or not the decision was erroneous in law remains open. ICBC filed a notice of appeal on March 31, 2015.
 I decline to reconsider my decision. Seeking to reconsider at this late date as well as to appeal strikes me as an abuse of the court process.