Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number: 24-002045/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:
Amare Shiferaw
Applicant
and
Aviva General Insurance Company
Respondent
DECISION
ADJUDICATOR: Melanie Malach
APPEARANCES:
For the Applicant: Amare Shiferaw, Self-represented
For the Respondent: Mark Vella, Counsel
HEARD: By way of written submissions
OVERVIEW
1Amare Shiferaw, the applicant, was involved in an automobile accident on February 9, 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 General 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 an income replacement benefit (“IRB”) in the amount of $124.92 per week from April 9, 2023 to date and ongoing?
ii. Is the applicant entitled to the services proposed by Oscar Manias as follows:
a) $4,253.00 for chiropractic services, in a treatment plan submitted January 16, 2024; and
b) $3,394.40 for physiotherapy services, in a treatment plan submitted February 13, 2023?
iii. Is the respondent liable to pay an award under s. 10 of Reg. 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
3I find that IRB benefits have been approved and paid in full, plus interest, and are no longer in dispute.
4I find that the treatment plans dated February 13, 2023 and January 16, 2024 have been approved, and are no longer in dispute.
5I find that no award is payable.
BACKGROUND
6The self-represented applicant was involved in a motor vehicle accident on February 9, 2023 and sought benefits from the respondent. The applicant was denied certain benefits from the respondent and filed his application with the Tribunal on February 15, 2024.
7On June 17, 2024, the parties participated in a case conference and a Case Conference Report and Order (“CCRO”) was issued to the parties on July 2, 2024, setting the matter down for a written hearing. A notice of written hearing was sent to all parties on July 4, 2024, advising that the written hearing was scheduled for March 28, 2025. Pursuant to the CCRO, the applicant was to serve and file his written submissions by February 26, 2025; the respondent was to serve and file its responding submissions by March 14, 2025; and the applicant was to serve and file his reply submissions by March 21, 2025.
8On September 3, 2024, the applicant filed a Notice of Motion for an order to amend, what he submitted, were errors in the CCRO. In a Motion Order dated September 9, 2024, the Tribunal denied the applicant’s motion, addressed each of the issues raised by the applicant in his motion, and provided explanations and clarity to better assist the applicant on the Tribunal’s processes, including how the applicant can address some of the issues in his written submissions.
9On October 17, 2024, the applicant filed a Notice of Motion requesting a second case conference so that the parties can discuss the resolution of the issues in dispute. In a Motion Order dated October 23, 2024, the Tribunal denied the applicant’s request and stated that parties are free to undertake settlement discussions between themselves and that a second case conference was not necessary.
10On February 6, 2025, the applicant filed a third Notice of Motion requesting that the Tribunal help him in an unspecified way, submitting that he cannot continue to represent himself in this application due to his health and personal matters. In a Motion Order dated February 7, 2025, the applicant’s motion was denied. The Tribunal advised the applicant that the Tribunal cannot provide legal advice but provided the applicant with a link to the Law Society of Ontario’s website for people in search of legal assistance.
11On February 24, 2025, the applicant filed a Request for an Adjournment of the written hearing scheduled for March 28, 2025, because of the continuous health issues he is experiencing. The applicant requested that the written hearing be adjourned to May 30, 2025. By Adjournment Order, dated February 25, 2025, the applicant’s request was denied. However, the deadlines for the parties’ written submissions were amended as follows: the applicant was to serve and file his written submissions by March 5, 2025; the respondent was to serve and file its responding submissions by March 21, 2025; and the applicant was to serve and file his reply submissions by March 27, 2025.
12The applicant provided multiple responses to the Adjournment Order via correspondence dated March 3, 14, 19, 24, and 27, 2025, setting out his disagreement with the Order. Subsequently he wrote multiple emails to the Tribunal and the respondent on April 16, 17, 24, 25, 29 and September 11, 2025, expressing his concerns and asking the Tribunal for help.
13To date, the applicant has not provided written submissions with respect to the issues in dispute in this hearing.
14On March 21, 2025, the respondent submitted its written submissions.
ANALYSIS
15The respondent submits that there are no issues in dispute. It submits that by letter dated June 18, 2024, the day following the Case Conference, it advised the applicant that the two treatment plans in dispute were approved. With respect to the issue of IRBs, it advised that IRBs were reinstated at a rate of $124.92 weekly, plus interest. In addition, on February 4, 2025, the respondent advised the applicant that it was increasing the amount of IRBs payable to $185.00 weekly in accordance with s. 7(2) of the Schedule.
16The respondent submits that the applicant has made no submissions. It further submits that there are no issues in dispute as all benefits have been paid and approved in full. It argues that with respect to the issue of an award, the applicant has failed to adduce any evidence or make any submissions with respect to his claim for entitlement to an award.
17I find that the respondent has provided evidence by way of a copy of its letter dated June 18, 2024, that confirms that the two treatment plans in dispute were approved, and that the applicant’s IRBs were reinstated. I find that the respondent’s letter dated February 4, 2025, confirms that his IRB was increased to $185.00 per week.
18I find that the issues of IRBs and the two treatment plans in dispute, as listed in the CCRO, have been resolved. With respect to the issue of an award, as no submissions or evidence with respect to the hearing issues have been filed with the Tribunal by the applicant, I find that the applicant has not met his evidentiary burden to support his entitlement to an award.
ORDER
19For the reasons outlined above, I find:
i. IRB benefits have been paid in full, plus interest, and are no longer in dispute;
ii. The treatment plans dated February 13, 2023 and January 16, 2024 have been approved, and are no longer in dispute;
iii. No award is payable; and
iv. The application is dismissed.
Released: November 3, 2025
Melanie Malach
Adjudicator