Jahangirian v. Aviva Insurance Company of Canada, 2025 CanLII 125927

Citation: Jahangirian v. Aviva Insurance Company of Canada, 2025 ONLAT 25-003108/AABS

Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number: 25-003108/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:

Khosrow Jahangirian

Applicant

and

Aviva Insurance Company of Canada

Respondent

DECISION

ADJUDICATOR:

Sam Moini

APPEARANCES:

For the Applicant:

Khosrow Jahangirian, Applicant (Did not attend)

For the Respondent:

Antony Drake, Counsel

Court Reporter:

Paula Monahan, Victory Verbatim

HEARD by videoconference:

November 10, 2025

OVERVIEW

1Khosrow Jahangirian, the applicant, was involved in an automobile accident on January 12, 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.

2This matter was scheduled for a 3-day videoconference hearing. The applicant did not attend the hearing, and a reason was not provided for their absence. The respondent appeared with counsel. We waited 30 minutes for the applicant. I requested that the case management officer (CMO) to reach out to the applicant with no success. The applicant did not appear.

3I am satisfied that the applicant had notice of the hearing.

4The parties were sent a notice of hearing by the Tribunal on July 4, 2025. The notice informed the parties the hearing would start on November 10, 2025, at 9:30 am and would be for 3 days. The notice was sent to the contact information provided by the parties.

5The Tribunal acknowledged a removal of representative from the applicant’s former representative on October 10, 2025. The applicant was couriered and emailed on October 14, 2025, to the contact information provided by the applicant, reminding that their hearing would begin on November 10, 2025, at 9:30 a.m. This correspondence also included a representative status request letter and zoom instructions to join the hearing. This correspondence was confirmed delivered through Purolator on October 20, 2025.

6On October 24, 2025, another notice of hearing was sent out to the applicant, through courier mail, notifying them of their hearing on November 10, 2025, at 9:30 a.m. with instructions with how to join the hearing. On November 7, 2025, the parties were again notified through email of the hearing scheduled for November 10 at 9:30 am with zoom link details. No reply or request for adjournment was provided by the applicant to the Tribunal.

7I decided to proceed in the absence of the applicant. Section 7(1) of the Statutory Powers Procedures Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. S.22 (SPPA) provides that where notice of an oral hearing has been given to a party to a proceeding in accordance with the SPPA and a party does not attend the hearing, the tribunal may proceed with the hearing in the absence of a party and the party is not entitled to further notice in the proceeding. In this case, I find that the applicant received notice of the videoconference hearing on the following dates, July 4, 2025, October 14, 2025, October 20, 2025, October 24, 2025, and November 7, 2025. The Tribunal confirmed the applicant’s contact information prior to the dissemination of the notices and according to the Tribunal’s case management records, it was sent to the contact the applicant had provided to the Tribunal.

ISSUES

8The issues in dispute are:

i. Is the applicant entitled to a non-earner benefit of $185.00 per week from February 12, 2023 to date and ongoing?

ii. Is the applicant entitled to $3,639.14 for chiropractic treatment, proposed by Mackenzie Medical Rehabilitation Centre Inc. in a treatment plan/OCF-18 (“plan”) dated February 21, 2023?

iii. Is the applicant entitled to $33.00 ($1,198.04 less $1,165.04 approved) for chiropractic treatment, proposed by Mackenzie Medical Rehabilitation Centre Inc. in a plan dated May 26, 2023?

iv. Is the applicant entitled to $3,343.83 for psychological treatment, proposed by E Clinic United Healing in a plan dated July 17, 2023?

v. Is the applicant entitled to $3,807.20 for psychological treatment, proposed by E Clinic United Healing in a plan dated March 19, 2024?

vi. Is the applicant entitled to $4,574.00 for psychological treatment, proposed by E Clinic United Healing in a plan dated June 17, 2024?

vii. Is the applicant entitled to the assessments proposed by Q Medical, as follows:

(a) $2,531.20 for a chronic pain assessment, in a treatment plan dated September 22, 2023;

(b) $2,545.33 for a psychological assessment, in a treatment plan dated June 9, 2023;

(c) $2,486.00 for a psychological assessment, in a treatment plan dated June 23, 2023; and

(d) $4,038.99 for a RN treatment assessment, in a treatment plan dated December 22, 2023?

viii. Is the applicant entitled to the assessments proposed by E Clinic United Healing, as follows:

(a) $1,546.63 for an environment assessment, in a plan dated December 3, 2023; and

(b) $1,050.00 for a nutritional assessment, in a plan dated January 12, 2024?

ix. Is the applicant entitled to attendant care benefits in the amount of $2,091.54 per month from January 12, 2023 to date and ongoing?

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

RESULT

9The applicant did not provide any submissions or evidence to the Tribunal in support of their claim. As a result, I find that the applicant has not satisfied their onus to demonstrate entitlement to the benefits being sought in this application, nor are they entitled to interest.

ANALYSIS

10The applicant did not to attend the hearing and did not present evidence or make submissions. It is the applicant’s onus to demonstrate, on a balance of probabilities, that they are entitled to the benefits in dispute. I find that the applicant has not met their onus as the Tribunal was not presented with evidence to show that the benefits being sought were reasonable and necessary.

11As the applicant has not made submissions or presented evidence in support of their application, it follows that the applicant has not met her burden of proof. I find that the applicant is not entitled to any of the benefits in dispute, nor are they entitled to interest.

ORDER

12The applicant is not entitled to any benefits in dispute or interest.

13The application is dismissed.