Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number: 23-014809/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:
Ying Zhao
Applicant
and
Security National Insurance Company
Respondent
DECISION
ADJUDICATOR:
Melanie Malach
APPEARANCES:
For the Applicant:
Rakesh Sharma, Counsel
For the Respondent:
Marco Fantin, Counsel
HEARD:
By way of written submissions
OVERVIEW
1Ying Zhao, the applicant, was involved in an automobile accident on July 7, 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, Security National 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. Is the applicant entitled to a non-earner benefit of $185.00 per week from August 4, 2022 to July 3, 2024?
ii. Is the respondent liable to pay an award under s. 10 of Reg. 664 because it unreasonably withheld or delayed payments to the applicant?
iii. Is the applicant entitled to interest on any overdue payment of benefits?
RESULT
3I find that the applicant is not entitled to a non-earner benefit of $185.00 per week from August 4, 2022 to July 3, 2024, interest or an award.
PROCEDURAL ISSUE
Section 54 of the Schedule
4The applicant in her reply submissions refers to s. 54 of the Schedule. She submits that she does not have the onus to disprove the case made out by the respondent that is not based on the denial reasons served upon the applicant under s. 54 of the Schedule.
5Section 54 of the Schedule provides that if an insurer refuses to pay a benefit or reduces the amount of a benefit that a person is receiving, the insurer shall provide the person with a written notice advising the person of his or her right to dispute the refusal or reduction.
6I find that the applicant is attempting to assert that the respondent is not allowed to make new submissions in this hearing, that were not specifically noted in the respondent’s denial letters of the benefits in dispute. The applicant has provided no authority to support this interpretation, nor do I find that it is remotely accurate based on a plain reading of the section. There is no indication in s. 54 of

