Arif Ali Sheikh v. Aviva General Insurance Company, 2025 CanLII 125952

Citation: Sheikh v. Aviva General Insurance Company, 2025 ONLAT 24-001862/AABS

Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number: 24-001862/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:

Arif Ali Sheikh

Applicant

and

Aviva General Insurance Company

Respondent

DECISION

ADJUDICATOR: Leo Demarce

APPEARANCES:

For the Applicant: Mariana Slomyanski (no submissions received)

For the Respondent: Anthony Naples, Counsel

HEARD: By way of written submissions

OVERVIEW

1Arif Sheikh, the applicant, was involved in an automobile accident on September 11, 2014, and sought benefits pursuant to the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule - Effective September 1, 2010 (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.

2A Case Conference was held on July 11, 2024, after which the Tribunal scheduled a written hearing for April 11, 2025. The applicant and her counsel participated in the case conference. A Notice of Written Hearing was provided to the parties, including the applicant and their representative on July 18, 2024. The applicant's initial written submissions were to be filed on March 12, 2025. However, the applicant never filed written submissions.

ISSUES

3The 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 limit?

ii. Is the applicant entitled to $9,580.18 for chronic pain treatment, proposed by HM Medical Network Ltd., in a treatment plan/OCF-18("plan") submitted January 31, 2024, and denied February 12, 2024?

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

4The application is dismissed.

ANALYSIS

5The applicant has the onus of demonstrating removal from the MIG. The applicant also has the onus of demonstrating entitlement to the medical benefits, award and interest in dispute.

6Both parties attended the case conference, with their counsel. In the case conference report and order released on July 11, 2024, the Tribunal ordered the dispute to proceed to a written hearing. The Tribunal scheduled a written hearing for April 11, 2025. Notice of this written hearing was emailed to the parties on July 18, 2024, using the contact information they had provided.

7Both parties are represented by counsel. The applicant's initial written submissions were due on March 12, 2025 but none have been filed. The respondent filed written submissions addressing the issues in dispute on March 28, 2025.

8Section 7(2) of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. S.22 provides that where a Tribunal has given notice of a written hearing to a party to a proceeding and the party does not participate in the hearing in accordance with the notice, the Tribunal may proceed without the party's participation and the party is not entitled to any further notice in the proceeding.

9There has been no motion made seeking to extend the initial submissions deadline by the applicant. I therefore proceeded with the hearing pursuant to s. 7(2) of the SPPA. As no submissions have been filed with the Tribunal by the applicant, I find that the applicant has not met his evidentiary burden.

ORDER

10As no submissions or evidence have been filed with the Tribunal by the applicant, I find that the applicant has not demonstrated grounds for removal from the MIG, nor has he demonstrated entitlement to the medical benefits, award, and interest in dispute.