Singh v. Aviva Insurance Company of Canada, 2025 CanLII 102187

Licence Appeal Tribunal

Citation: Singh v. Aviva Insurance Company of Canada, 2025 ONLAT 24-005358/AABS

Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number: 24-005358/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:

Gagandeep Singh

Applicant

and

Aviva Insurance Company of Canada

Respondent

DECISION

VICE-CHAIR: Tyler Moore

APPEARANCES:

For the Applicant: No Submissions

For the Respondent: Hilary Doyle, Counsel

HEARD: By Way of Written Submissions

OVERVIEW

1Gagandeep Singh, the applicant, was involved in an automobile accident on March 21, 2023, 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 the respondent, Aviva Insurance Company of Canada, and applied to the Licence Appeal Tribunal - Automobile Accident Benefits Service (the "Tribunal") for resolution of the dispute.

ISSUES

2The 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 $3,244.58 for chiropractic services, proposed by Alma Rehab Inc. in a treatment plan/OCF-18 ("plan") dated July 29, 2023?

iii. Is the applicant entitled to $3,512.56 for physiotherapy services, proposed by Alma Rehab Inc. in a treatment plan dated November 21, 2023?

iv. Is the applicant entitled to $3,512.56 for physiotherapy services, proposed by Alma Rehab Inc. in a treatment plan dated April 1, 2024?

v. Is the applicant entitled to $1,995.33 for a psychological assessment, proposed by Ontario Independent Assessment Centre in a treatment plan dated April 29, 2024?

vi. Is the applicant entitled to $2,657.75 for a chronic pain assessment, proposed by Ontario Independent Assessment Centre in a treatment plan dated April 29, 2024?

vii. Is the respondent liable to pay an award under s. 10 of Reg. 664 because it unreasonably withheld or delayed payments to the applicant?

viii. Is the applicant entitled to interest on any overdue payment of benefits?

ANALYSIS

3In the case conference report and order released on September 9, 2024, the Tribunal ordered the dispute to proceed to a written hearing. The Tribunal scheduled a written hearing for June 6, 2025. Notice of the written hearing was e-mailed to the parties on September 11, 2024, using the contact information provided.

4On April 23, 2025, the applicant's representative at the time filed a Removal of Representative form with the Tribunal.

5On April 24, 2025, the Tribunal acknowledged the Removal of Representative request by e-mail. On that same date, the applicant's representative at the time provided the Tribunal with the applicant's updated contact information. The Tribunal corresponded with the applicant by phone and the applicant indicated that he would be proceeding as a self-represented individual.

6The applicant's initial submissions were due on May 7, 2025.

7The respondent filed its written submissions on May 23, 2025.

8On July 8, 2025, the Tribunal e-mailed the parties after not receiving any written submissions from the applicant. The Tribunal requested that the parties advise the Tribunal if the matter had resolved and to file a Notice of Withdrawal if that was the case.

9The Tribunal has not received any further correspondence from the applicant. The applicant has not filed a Notice of Withdrawal, and I find that no Notice of Motion has been filed seeking to extend the applicant's submission deadlines.

10Since the applicant did not file a Notice of Withdrawal with the Tribunal, the parties' file was not closed, and I will proceed with the hearing pursuant to s. 7(2) of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act. I find that the applicant had notice of the written hearing by way of e-mail on September 11, 2024.

11The applicant has the onus of demonstrating that he should be removed from the MIG, and that he is entitled to the medical benefits and award in dispute.

12As no submissions or evidence have been filed with the Tribunal by the applicant, I find that the applicant has not demonstrated that he should be removed from the MIG, and that he is entitled to the medical benefits, award, and interest in dispute.

ORDER

13The applicant remains in the MIG and is not entitled to the medical benefits in dispute.

14As no benefits are owing, the applicant is not entitled to interest or an award.

15The application is dismissed.