Yi Yin Luo v. Ayr Farmers Mutual Insurance Company, 2025 CanLII 108602

Citation: Luo vs. Ayr Farmers Mutual Insurance Company, 2025 ONLAT 24-011558/AABS

Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number: 24-011558/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:

Yi Yin Luo

Applicant

and

Ayr Farmers Mutual Insurance Company

Respondent

DECISION

VICE-CHAIR: Tyler Moore

APPEARANCES:

For the Applicant: No Submissions

For the Respondent: Ayr Farmers Mutual Insurance Company, Laura Emmett, Counsel

HEARD: By Way of Written Submissions

OVERVIEW

1Yi Yin Luo, the applicant, was involved in an automobile accident on August 20, 2022, 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, Ayr Farmers Mutual Insurance Company, 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 $3,626.97 for psychological services, proposed by Perfect Choice Psychological Service Inc. in a treatment plan/OCF-18 (“plan”) dated January 30, 2023?

iii. Is the applicant entitled to $2,200.00 for a psychological assessment, proposed by Perfect Choice Psychological Service Inc. in a plan dated November 11, 2022?

iv. Is the applicant entitled to $417.57 for prescriptions, submitted on a claim form/OCF-6, with a repayment request submitted by the respondent dated June 27, 2023?

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

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

ANALYSIS

3In the case conference report and order that was released on January 24, 2025, the Tribunal ordered that the dispute proceed to a written hearing. The Tribunal scheduled a written hearing on September 12, 2025. Notice of the written hearing was e-mailed to the parties on January 28, 2025, using the contact information provided.

4The applicant’s initial submissions were due on August 13, 2025.

5The respondent filed its written submissions on September 2, 2025.

6The Tribunal has not received any further correspondence from the applicant. I find that no Notice of Motion has been filed with the Tribunal seeking to extend the applicant’s submission deadlines, and that no Notice of Withdrawal has been filed.

7Since 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 January 28, 2025.

8The applicant has the onus of demonstrating that they should be removed from the MIG and that they are entitled to the medical benefits and award in dispute.

9As no submissions or evidence have been filed with the Tribunal by the applicant, I find that the applicant has not met the evidentiary burden to demonstrate that they should be removed from the MIG and that they are entitled to the medical benefits, prescriptions, award, and interest in dispute.

ORDER

10The applicant remains in the MIG and is not entitled to the treatment plans and prescriptions in dispute.

11As no benefits are payable, the applicant is not entitled to interest or an award.

12The application is dismissed.