Castillo-Candia v. Aviva General, 2025 CanLII 18243

Castillo-Candia v. Aviva General, 2025 ONLAT 24-001785/AABS

Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number: 24-001785/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:

Nicol Alexsandra Castillo-Candia

Applicant

and

Aviva General Insurance Company

Respondent

DECISION

ADJUDICATOR: Mary Henein Thorn

APPEARANCES:

For the Applicant: Joshua Meshack, Counsel

For the Respondent: Aleah H. Thomas, Counsel

HEARD: by Videoconference: February 3, 2025

OVERVIEW

1This proceeding concerns a dispute between an insured person Nicol Alexsandra Castillo-Candia, (the applicant) and an insurer Aviva General, (the respondent) about automobile insurance benefits under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule – Effective September 1, 2010 (including amendments effective June 1, 2016) (the “Schedule”) arising out of a motor vehicle accident on November 17, 2020.

ISSUES

2The issues in dispute are:

i. Is the applicant entitled to $2,486.00 for chronic pain assessment, proposed by Downsview Healthcare Inc. in a treatment plan dated October 16, 2023?

ii. Is the applicant entitled to $2,486.00 for an attendant care assessment, proposed by Downsview Healthcare Inc. in a treatment plan/ dated October 26, 2023?

iii. Is the applicant entitled to $2,486.00 for neurological assessment, proposed by Downsview Healthcare Inc. in a treatment plan dated October 26, 2023?

iv. Is the applicant entitled to $1,405.39 ($2,682.76 less $1,277.37 approved) for psychological services, proposed by Downsview Healthcare Inc. in a treatment plan dated August 24, 2023?

v. Is the applicant entitled to attendant care benefits in the amount of $1,247.34 per month from May 3, 2024?

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

PROCEDURAL ISSUE

3The respondent filed a motion on January 31, 2025 to be heard at the start of the hearing. It requests the videoconference hearing to be converted to a written hearing.

4At the start of the hearing, both parties made the same submission. Since the attendant care benefit has now been resolved, the most efficient use of time and resources is to convert this videoconference hearing to a written hearing.

5They also submitted they were not prepared to proceed with the hearing. Neither party has submitted a document brief, and both parties were unsure if they could secure their witnesses.

6I order this hearing to proceed via videoconference. I have considered the parties submissions and was not persuaded the hearing should proceed in writing at a later date because I find proper notice was provided to the parties on July 12, 2024 notifying them of the hearing and the file is currently 360 days old.

7I stood the matter down for two hours in order for the parties to prepare for the hearing.

8After a two hour break, the parties notified me they had settled the issues in dispute and that the application has been resolved.

RESULT

9As the parties have resolved the issues in dispute, the Tribunal’s file is now closed.