Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number: 24-003904/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:
Guanjun Liu
Applicant
and
Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Fund
Respondent
PRELIMINARY ISSUE HEARING DECISION AND ORDER
ADJUDICATOR: Tanjoyt Deol
APPEARANCES:
For the Applicant: Sareena Samra, Counsel
For the Respondent: Marie Sydney, Counsel; Andrew Choi, Counsel
HEARD: By Way of Written Submissions
OVERVIEW
1Guanjun Liu, the applicant, was involved in a motor vehicle accident on October 26, 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 certain benefits by the respondent, Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Fund (“MVACF”) and applied to the Licence Appeal Tribunal – Automobile Accident Benefits Service (“Tribunal”) for resolution of the dispute.
PRELIMINARY ISSUE IN DISPUTE
2The preliminary issue to be determined is:
a) Is the applicant precluded from receiving statutory accident benefits from MVACF as a result of section 25 of the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Act, RSO 1990, c. M.41 (“the Act”)?
RESULT
3I find that:
a) The applicant is precluded from claiming statutory accident benefits from MVACF, since, at the time of the accident, the applicant was not ordinarily resident in Ontario as required by s. 25(1) of the Act.
b) The application is dismissed and the substantive hearing is vacated.
ANALYSIS
The Burden of Proof rests upon MVACF
4MVACF argues that the burden of proof is typically on the applicant to establish entitlement to benefits under the Schedule. It further argues that the Tribunal has determined in Xu v. Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Fund, [2019 CanLII 149297 (ON LAT)](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onlat/doc/20