Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number: 21-012748/AABS
In the matter of an application pursuant to subsection 280(2) of the Insurance Act, RSO 1990, c I.8, in relation to statutory accident benefits.
Between:
Abdi Ismail
Applicant
and
Aviva Insurance Canada
Respondent
DECISION
ADJUDICATOR: Tanjoyt Deol
APPEARANCES:
For the Applicant: Rajiv Kapoor, Paralegal
For the Respondent: Vameesha Patel, Counsel
HEARD: By Way of Written Submissions
OVERVIEW
1Abdi Ismail (the “applicant”) was involved in an automobile accident on October 21, 2016, and sought benefits pursuant to the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule - Effective September 1, 2010 (including amendments effective June 1, 2016) (the “Schedule”). The applicant was denied benefits by Aviva Insurance Canada (the “respondent”) and applied to the Licence Appeal Tribunal - Automobile Accident Benefits Service (the “Tribunal”) for resolution of the dispute.
2The respondent filed a notice of motion on June 8, 2023, seeking an order striking all or part of the applicant’s reply; or in the alternative, an order allowing it to file a sur-reply. On June 23, 2023, The Tribunal ordered that the applicant’s reply will not be struck from the record, however due to improper formatting, the applicant was ordered to refile his reply submissions, which he did so.
ISSUES
3The issues in dispute are:
i. Are the applicant’s injuries predominantly minor as defined in s. 3 of the Schedule and therefore subject to treatment within the $3,500.00 Minor Injury Guideline (“MIG”) limit?
ii. Is the applicant entitled to $5,091.68 for shockwave and laser therapy, acupuncture, massage therapy, chiropractic therapy, and physiotherapy proposed by Healthmax-Etobicoke in a treatment plan (“OCF-18”) dated August 3, 2021?
iii. Is the respondent liable to pay an award pursuant to s. 10 of Regulation 664 because it unreasonably withheld or delayed payments to the applicant?
iv. Is the applicant entitled to interest on any overdue payment of benefits?
RESULT
4I find that:
i. The applicant’s impairments are predominantly minor, and therefore subject to the treatment limits of the MIG.
ii. As a result of the respondent’s non-compliance with s.38(8) and s.38(9) of the Schedule, the applicant is entitled to the disputed OCF-18 and interest if it was incurred on the 11th business day after the respondent received the OCF-18 and ending on the date when compliant notice was provided (i.e., October 19, 2021).
iii. The applicant is not entitled to an award pursuant to s. 10 of Regulation 664.
Preliminary Issue- Late Disclosure of the records of Cedar Medical, Joint Chiro, and Zen Spa
5The applicant tendered the clinical notes and records of Cedar Medical and Joint Chiro, and the receipts from Zen Spa as evidence for this hearing.
6The respondent submits that the applicant is in breach of the Tribunal’s Order. The applicant was ordered by the Tribunal to submit any documentation that was not previously disclosed by no later than 60 calendar days from the case conference. The respondent submits that the deadline to do so was by December 3, 2022, and that the applicant only submitted the records of Cedar Medical, and Joint Chiro, and the receipts from Zen Spa on April 21, 2023. The respondent submits that these records should be excluded from the record and relies on the authority of Francis v. Aviva Insurance Company of Canada (ON LAT) (“Francis”). The respondent submits that it would be prejudiced if the records are not excluded, and it would be procedurally unfair. Moreover, it submits that it was denied the opportunity to obtain addendum reports due to the late disclosure of the records of Cedar Medical, Joint Chiro, and Zen Spa.
7The applicant in reply submits that he served the receipts from Zen Spa on September 30, 2022, and the clinical notes and records of Joint Chiro on October 18, 2022, via email to the respondent’s previous representative. Further, the applicant submits that he submitted a partial copy of the clinical notes and records of Cedar Medical on September 30, 2022, via email to the respondent’s previous representative. The applicant further submits that the remaining clinical notes and records (pages 315 to 317 in his document brief) were served on the respondent on January 27, 2023, and that he made best efforts to obtain this in a reasonable timeframe.
8The applicant also submits that the deadline for responsive items to be submitted in accordance with the previous Tribunal Order, was 45 calendar days before the hearing and as an amended notice was sent by the Tribunal, the deadline for responsive items to be submitted, was April 25, 2023. As such, the applicant submits that he was compliant with the previous Tribunal Order.
9Tribunal Rule 9.4 of the Tribunal’s Common Rules of Practice and Procedure (“Common Rules”) sets out that a party that fails to comply with any Rules or Orders regarding disclosure or inspection of documents or things, or lists of witnesses, that party may not rely on the document or thing as evidence, or call the witnesses to give evidence, without the consent of the Tribunal. The Tribunal’s Order was clear that the deadline for exchange of all documents not previously disclosed was 60 calendar days following the case conference, which was made on consent by both parties.
10I find that the applicant was compliant with the previous Tribunal’s Order with respect to the records of Joint Chiro, and the receipts of Zen Spa. However, I find that the applicant was in breach of the previous Tribunal order with respect to the Cedar Medical records, as he only partially served the records by the mandated deadline. I disagree with the applicant that the records of Cedar Medical were responsive to items that have already been produced and as such, the deadline to provide the complete records of Cedar Medical was 60 calendar days following the case conference.
11While I acknowledge the applicant made attempts to get the records on September 13, 2022, September 26, 2022, October 3, 2022, and January 13, 2023, he could have brought a motion before the Tribunal to extend the deadline for the production of the Cedar Medical records, but he chose not to do so. However, the respondent has failed to demonstrate any actual prejudice that it sustained, and an addendum report was already completed on October 22, 2022. Section 44 assessor, Dr. Gelman, physician, reviewed the partial records of Cedar Medical when he completed his addendum report. It is not clear why Dr. Gelman did not review the records of Joint Chiro, and the receipts of Zen Spa, when these were provided on September 30, 2022, and October 18, 2022. When weighing procedural fairness and any potential prejudice brought, I find the scales tip in favour of the applicant. The applicant would be unfairly prejudiced if the records of Cedar Medical were otherwise excluded in this matter. Further, while previous Tribunal decisions can be persuasive, I am not bound by them.
12Lastly, I would caution the applicant against any future breach of Tribunal Orders. Rule 9.4 of the Common Rules is discretionary and when parties fail to abide by production orders or deadlines, they risk the potential of exclusion by the hearing adjudicator. Deadlines are intended to promote procedural fairness and to maintain hearing efficiency pursuant to Rule 3.1 of the Common Rules.
ANALYSIS
The Minor Injury Guideline
13The MIG establishes a framework available to injured persons who sustain a minor injury as a result of an accident. A “minor injury” is defined in s. 3(1) of the Schedule as, “one or more of a strain, sprain, whiplash associated disorder, contusion, abrasion, laceration or subluxation and includes any clinically associated sequelae to such an injury.” The terms, “strain,” “sprain,” “subluxation,” and “whiplash associated disorder” are defined in the Schedule.
14Section 18(1) limits recovery for medical and rehabilitation benefits for predominantly minor injuries to $3,500.00. An applicant may receive payment for treatment beyond the $3,500.00 cap if they can demonstrate that a pre-existing condition, documented by a medical practitioner, prevents maximal medical recovery under the MIG or if they provide evidence of a psychological impairment or chronic pain with a functional impairment. It is the applicant’s burden to establish entitlement to coverage beyond the $3,500.00 cap on a balance of probabilities.
15The applicant submits that he should be removed from the MIG on the following grounds:
(i) The applicant submits that he has pre-existing medical conditions of: hypertension, diabetes, right foot pain, and back pain. The applicant submits that his pre-existing back pain was aggravated by the subject accident; and that
(ii) He has chronic lower back pain.
16The respondent submits that the applicant has not submitted any compelling medical evidence to support a pre-existing condition or illness that would prevent the applicant from achieving maximal medical improvement within the MIG. Further, the respondent made several submissions with respect to the applicant’s chronic pain argument, which will be addressed further below in my decision.
The applicant does not have a pre-existing condition that will prevent maximal recovery within the MIG
17The applicant is not removed from the MIG as a result of a pre-existing condition, as he has failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that his pre-existing condition would prevent maximal recovery within the MIG.
18The standard for excluding an impairment on the basis of a pre-existing condition are well-defined and strict. A pre-existing condition will not automatically exclude a person’s impairment from the MIG: it must be shown to prevent maximal recovery within the funding limit imposed by the MIG.
19In accordance with s.18(2) of the Schedule, the applicant must meet a three-part test. The applicant must meet all three of the following requirements in order to be removed from the MIG pursuant to this section:
a. Have a pre-existing medical condition;
b. The pre-existing medical condition was documented by a health practitioner before the accident; and
c. The person’s treating health practitioner determines and provides compelling evidence that the pre-existing condition will prevent maximal recovery from the minor injury if the person is subject to the $3,500 limit under the MIG.
20Despite the applicant’s submissions, he has provided no compelling medical evidence as to how his pre-existing conditions will prevent him from achieving maximal recovery with the MIG. This is an important part of the test under s.18(2). Given that this branch of the test has not been addressed, I find that the applicant falls below the threshold for removal from the MIG on the account of any pre-existing conditions.
21While I acknowledge that the x-rays conducted on April 19, 2017, revealed degenerative changes in the cervical spine and small osteophytes throughout the lumbar spine and a possible renal calculus. On April 27, 2017, an x-ray of the right knee revealed a minimal osteophyte formation in all compartments, most prominent in the patellofemoral joint. Further, a patella spur was seen superiorly. On December 24, 2017, a CAT scan of the lumbar spine revealed multi-level degenerative changes. However, none of these records help to establish that the applicant cannot recover within the MIG limits as a result of any pre-existing conditions. The applicant has failed to provide any medical opinion that helps to support his submission that he cannot recover within the MIG due to any pre-existing conditions.
22Accordingly, I am unable to conclude that the applicant has pre-existing conditions that would preclude his recovery from his accident-related injuries if subject to the MIG, and $3,500.00 funding limit.
Previous Tribunal Decision released on March 10, 2021
23The applicant previously filed a Tribunal application, dated May 24, 2019, for the same accident. The previous application pertained to OCF-18s for psychological treatment, physiotherapy treatment, and the costs of a chronic pain assessment and a driving reintegration assessment. The issue of whether the applicant was in the MIG was not raised by the parties in the previous application. The Tribunal assigned file number 19-005524/AABS to the application.
24In its decision reported at 2021 CanLII 28706 (ON LAT), the Tribunal determined that none of the proposed OCF-18s or the cost of assessments were reasonable and necessary. The Tribunal determined that the applicant was not entitled to the cost of the chronic pain assessment as he failed to provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate that it was reasonable and necessary for the injuries he sustained in the accident. In order to make this determination, the Tribunal reviewed the s.25 chronic pain assessment report, the imaging reports from April 2017, and the records of the applicant’s family physicians.
25The Tribunal reviewed the evidence presented by the parties and highlighted why it was not persuaded by the evidence at paragraphs 27-29. The Tribunal determined after considering all the evidence, that the applicant has not established a chronic pain assessment is reasonable and necessary for the injuries, he sustained in this accident. In particular, the Tribunal was not persuaded by the clinical notes and records of the applicant’s family physicians as they had already determined prior to the chronic pain assessment referral, that many of the applicant’s pain complaints came about because of his work. Further, the Tribunal noted that the imaging results from April 2017 showed degenerative changes and small osteophytes throughout the lumbar spine. Lastly, the Tribunal was not persuaded by the s.25 chronic pain assessment report, as Dr. Getahun did not clearly diagnose the applicant with a chronic pain syndrome directly from the accident.
26The respondent submits that the applicant did not file for reconsideration of this decision and that the Tribunal reviewed a number of medical records included in the applicant’s document brief for this hearing. These documents include: Bluewater imaging reports dated April 27, 2017, and April 19, 2017; clinical notes and records of Dr. Alshamam from October 21, 2013 to July 13, 2022; and a s.25 chronic pain report of Dr. Getahun, dated August 9, 2019. The respondent further submits that if the Tribunal in the previous decision had found that the applicant’s injuries were due to the accident and were chronic in nature, then the chronic pain assessment would have been found reasonable and necessary. The respondent submits that the applicant has not provided compelling new medical evidence since the initial application and the previous Tribunal decision.
27In reply, the applicant submits that the MIG is not a static issue, and new evidence has been provided after March 10, 2021, that may show that he sustained injuries outside of the MIG. The applicant further submits he did not once mention Dr. Getahun’s report in his initial written submissions dated May 9, 2023, and the respondent conveniently omits all the other medical records that were not part of the previous hearing and provided to the insurer after the hearing submissions made on September 28, 2020. Moreover, the applicant submits that the new medical evidence provided after September 28, 2020 (i.e., Cedar Medical Walk-In-Clinic, records from Joint Chiro, multiple prescription summaries, records from Health max, out-of-pocket expenses for treatment from Zen Spa, etc.) incontrovertibly demonstrates the need for treatment outside of the MIG.
28This decision was neither reconsidered nor appealed to the Divisional Court. As a result, it is a final decision.
The applicant has failed to establish that he should be removed from the MIG on the basis of chronic pain
29I find that the applicant is not removed from the MIG on the basis of chronic pain.
30The applicant submits that he has ongoing medical issues following this accident, which include: bilateral knee pain, chronic lower back pain, neck pain, and right shoulder pain. The applicant further submits that he has ongoing physical injuries that have persisted well beyond the expected healing timeframe and that he is heavily reliant on his health practitioners as demonstrated by the OHIP summary.
31The respondent submits that the Joint Chiro record dated September 7, 2022, noted that the applicant’s neck and back pain from the accident had resolved. The respondent further submits that the Tribunal has already determined that the applicant’s family physician records show that his pain complaints came about because of his work. Further, the respondent submits that the applicant has failed to demonstrate that his pain causes functional impairment as the records indicate that he continued to work and travel.
32Firstly, The Tribunal has already weighted the following evidence and come to a determination, as such, I will not be reconsidering this evidence for the purposes of this hearing. This evidence include the following: Bluewater imaging reports dated April 27, 2017, and April 19, 2017; clinical notes and records of Dr. Alshamam from October 21, 2013 to July 13, 2022; and a s.25 chronic pain report of Dr. Getahun, dated August 9, 2019. As such, I will not be making a determination with respect to this evidence, as it has already been considered by the Tribunal.
33Secondly, I find that the new evidence presented by the applicant does not demonstrate that his ongoing pain complaints are as a result of the accident. I place significant weight on the clinical note and record of Joint Chiro, dated September 7, 2022, for the following reasons:
(i) The record clearly indicates that the applicant sustained injuries to his neck and back from this accident which had resolved; and
(ii) That the applicant currently had tension/discomfort/pain in his neck, upper back, shoulders, mid back, low back, hips and knee. However, he was not sure what the original cause of this pain was.
34As such, while I acknowledge that the applicant has ongoing pain complaints, he has failed to demonstrate that these are a result of the accident. The applicant clearly advised that his accident-related injuries had resolved and that he was not aware of the original cause for his pain. This is also consistent with the Tribunal’s previous finding that the applicant’s pain complaints came about because of his work. I further acknowledge that the records of Health Max indicate that the applicant has difficulty with bending, kneeling, and squatting due to knee and lower back pain, and that he has ongoing neck pain, shoulder pain, right heel pain, and foot pain. However, I find that this does not address the inconsistent evidence that is contained in the Joint Chiro record dated September 7, 2022, and as such, I am not persuaded by it.
35Turning to the further new medical evidence, which is the Cedar Medical records. I am not persuaded by these records for the following reasons. Firstly, the record of September 2, 2022, notes that the applicant was involved in the subject accident and has pain from it, however this is largely based on the applicant’s self-reporting. Further, the applicant did not advise Dr. Samatar that he also made pain complaints to his family physicians because of his work. On September 8, 2022, Dr. Samatar diagnosed the applicant with: bilateral knee pain, chronic lower back pain, neck pain, and right shoulder pain, but there is no reference to the accident. Moreover, it does not appear that Dr. Samatar was in possession of the records of the applicant’s previous family physician, Dr. Alshamam, or the record of Joint Chiro, dated September 7, 2022. As such, it is not clear whether Dr. Samatar had the full medical picture of the applicant’s condition prior to diagnosing him with chronic pain.
36I am further not persuaded by the December 24, 2017, CAT Scan of the Lumbar Spine. This CAT scan noted that there is a clinical indication of chronic lower back pain shooting to both of the applicant’s legs, however the symptoms were not comparable to the lumbar spine which revealed degenerative changes. The CAT Scan revealed degenerative changes most pronounced laterally on the left at L3-4 and on the right at L4-5 and no obstructing right renal calculus. The applicant has failed to establish the connection between the degenerative changes and the subject accident, as he has not referred to any new medical evidence that provides this link.
37I am also not persuaded by the multiple prescription summaries, or the receipts of Zen Spa, as once again, these do not demonstrate that the applicant’s ongoing pain complaints are a result of this accident. While the applicant submits that Dr. Alshamam acknowledged on February 3, 2020, that he had chronic pain which started after this accident, the records of Dr. Alshamam have already been considered by the Tribunal. Further, I am not persuaded by the record, as Dr. Alshamam referred the applicant to the pain clinic, and these records have not been provided. Moreover, Dr. Alshamam did not directly link the applicant’s chronic lower back pain to the accident.
38Lastly, once again the onus is on the applicant to prove on a balance of probabilities and not on the respondent to disprove. I acknowledge that the applicant states that the s.44 assessments dated October 15, 2021, and October 25, 2022, completed by Dr. Gelman are deficient and should be given little weight by the Tribunal. However, the applicant must still point me to his own evidence and argument that is then potentially further supported by the alleged failings of the respondent. Relying on alleged weaknesses in the respondent’s evidence alone is insufficient.
39The applicant also relies upon the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in Nova Scotia (Workers’ Compensation Board) v. Martin (“Martin”) 2003 2 S.C.R. in support of his position that he has chronic pain as his pain has persisted beyond the normal healing time for the underlying injury.
40The Martin case was about the constitutionality of the Functional Restoration Program (“FRP”) in Nova Scotia, which specifically excludes workers who suffer from chronic pain from receiving earning replacement benefits. In that case, Martin was lifting a tow dolly and towed it backward 15 feet and then he experienced a sudden and severe pain in his lumbar spine. He was diagnosed with lumbar sprain, and he attempted to return to work several times, but recurring pain required him to stop. He attended a work conditioning and hardening program. However, his claim for compensation was denied on the basis that there was no pathology to support his complaints of pain and he was developing the early signs of chronic pain, however under the FRP regulations chronic pain is generally excluded. In Martin, it was held the FRP, which excludes compensation for chronic pain, was discriminatory and violated the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
41In my view, the present case is distinguishable from Martin, as the applicant has failed to establish that his current pain is as a result of the accident.
42Accordingly, I do not find that the applicant is removed from the MIG on the basis of chronic pain.
SUFFICIENCY OF THE DENIAL OF THE OCF-18
Was the respondent’s denial letter dated August 18, 2021, compliant with s.38(8) and s.38(9) of the Schedule?
43The applicant submits that the denial letter dated August 18, 2021 was non-compliant with s.38(8) and s.38(9) of the Schedule. Firstly, the applicant submits that the denial letter was sent beyond the 10-business day deadline as mandated pursuant to s.38(8). Secondly, the respondent failed to provide the applicant with medical reasons for the denial of the OCF-18, as the denial letter was boilerplate, general, opaque, and vague. Lastly, the respondent failed to advise the applicant whether the MIG was applicable for the denial of the OCF-18 and therefore was non-compliant with s.38(9) of the Schedule. The applicant submits that as a result of the respondent’s non-compliance with ss.38(8) and 38(9), it is prohibited from taking the position that the applicant had an impairment to which the MIG applies.
44The respondent submits that if it was found to have been non-compliant with s.38(8) for the proposed OCF-18, then it is prohibited from relying on the MIG to deny the specific OCF-18 only. The respondent relies on the authority of Nguyen v. Wawanesa Mutual Insurance Company (“Nguyen”), 2021 CanLII 96836 to support its proposition.
45Sections 38(8), 38(9) and 38(11) of the Schedule set out strict notice requirements for insurers responding to treatment plans and specific consequences if they fail to comply. Section 38(8) requires an insurer to inform an insured person of the medical and other reasons why it considered the goods and services not to be reasonable and necessary if it denies a treatment plan. If an insurer believes that the MIG applies to the insured person’s impairments, the notice required under s. 38(8) must advise the insured person that it is taking this position pursuant to s.38(9).
46I am persuaded by the authority of Garcia v. Co-operators General Insurance Company, 2022 CanLII 92716 (“Garcia”) which the applicant referred me to. I agree with the Tribunal’s rationale in Garcia that when an insurer believes the MIG applies, it must always comply with s.38(9) in order to comply with s.38(8).
47I find that the denial letter, dated August 18, 2021, was non-compliant with s.38(8) and s.38(9) of the Schedule. Firstly, it did not advise the applicant that he was in the MIG and that was the basis for the denial of the OCF-18. Further, the language used in the correspondence is boilerplate and would not allow an unsophisticated person to make an informed decision as to whether to accept or dispute the denial.
48As a result of the respondent’s non-compliance with s. 38(8) and s. 38(9) of the Schedule, the following consequences contained in s. 38(11) are triggered:
The insurer is prohibited from taking the position that the insured person has an impairment to which the Minor Injury Guideline applies.
The insurer shall pay for all goods, services, assessments, and examinations described in the treatment and assessment plan that relate to the period starting on the 11th business day after the day the insurer received the application and ending on the day the insurer gives a notice described in subsection (8).
49However, I find that the subsequent denial letter, dated October 19, 2021, did cure the deficiency in the previous denial letter, as it is clear and unequivocal in its denial. The denial letter advised the applicant that based on the IE report of Dr. Gelman, dated October 15, 2021, that the OCF-18 remained denied as further facility-based rehabilitation was unlikely to add any long-term benefits. While the denial letter also mentioned that the applicant’s injuries are confirmed to be within the MIG, this was not the reason for the denial of the OCF-18. As such, this matter can be distinguished from the authority of Lawson v. Desjardins General Insurance Group, 2023 CanLII 13015.
50I am persuaded by the authority of Nguyen which referred to the binding Divisional Court Decision of Zheng, Cai v. Aviva Insurance Company of Canada, 2018 ONSC 5707 (“Zheng”). I am bound by Zheng, wherein it was made clear by the Divisional Court that the language of s.38(11) operates to bar the respondent from taking the MIG position in respect of the particular OCF-18 and is not an absolute bar from the respondent taking the MIG position in relation to the entire application. As such, I find that the respondent is only barred from taking the MIG position with respect to this one OCF-18.
51As such, the applicant is entitled to any incurred costs between the time period starting on the 11th business day after the day the insurer received the OCF-18 and ending on October 19, 2021.
Interest
52Pursuant to section 51 of the Schedule, interest is payable on the overdue payment of benefits. As such, the applicant is entitled to interest on the disputed OCF-18 if it was incurred starting on the 11th business day after the day the insurer received the OCF-18 and ending on October 19, 2021.
Award
54I find that the applicant has not met his evidentiary onus to demonstrate that he is entitled to an award, for the reasons that will follow below.
55Pursuant to section 10 of Regulation 664, the Tribunal may award up to 50% of the total benefits payable if it determines that the insurer unreasonably withheld or delayed the payment of benefits. The Tribunal has determined that an award is justified where the delay or withholding of benefits by the insurer is unreasonable conduct, meaning “behaviour which is excessive, imprudent, stubborn, inflexible, unyielding, or immoderate.” The onus is on the applicant to prove, on a balance of probabilities, that the respondent’s conduct meets this criteria.
53It is well-settled that insurers are not held to a standard of perfection in their adjusting decisions and that a s. 10 award is meant to act as a deterrent against bad faith conduct by an insurer and not as a punishment for arriving at a wrong conclusion.
54The applicant submits that an award is appropriate as the respondent failed to comply with s.38(8) and 38(9) of the Schedule. The respondent submits that s.38(11) is a remedial provision.
55I find that the applicant has not met his burden of proving on a balance of probabilities that he is entitled to an award in this matter. The only benefit that I have found that the applicant is entitled to is as a result of the respondent’s failure to comply with its obligations under ss. 38(8) and 38(9) of the Schedule. My finding that the respondent failed to comply with its obligations under ss. 38(8) and 38(9) of the Schedule does not in and of itself amount to an unreasonable withholding or delay of payment of benefits. Moreover, the deficient notice was cured by the respondent within two months, as such it does not amount to an unreasonable withholding or delay of payment of benefits.
ORDER
56The applicant’s impairments are predominantly minor, and therefore subject to the treatment limits of the MIG.
57As a result of the respondent’s non-compliance with s.38(8) and s.38(9) of the Schedule, the applicant is entitled to the disputed OCF-18 and interest if it was incurred on the 11th business day after the respondent received the OCF-18 and ending on the date when compliant notice was provided (i.e., October 19, 2021).
58The applicant is not entitled to an award pursuant to s. 10 of Regulation 664.
59The application is dismissed.
Released: November 7, 2023
Tanjoyt Deol
Adjudicator