Kaur v. Aviva General Insurance Company, 2025 CanLII 62736

Licence Appeal Tribunal

Citation: Kaur vs. Aviva General Insurance Company, 2025 ONLAT 23-012887/AABS

Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number: 23-012887/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:

Arshpreet Kaur Applicant

and

Aviva General Insurance Company Respondent

DECISION

ADJUDICATOR: Nishant Nayak

APPEARANCES:

For the Applicant: Arshpreet Kaur, Applicant For the Respondent: Cara Boddy, Counsel

HEARD: In Writing

OVERVIEW

1Arshpreet Kaur, the applicant, was involved in an automobile accident on December 12, 2020, 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.

2In the case conference report and order released on April 23, 2024, the Tribunal ordered the dispute to proceed to a written hearing. The Tribunal scheduled a written hearing for December 20, 2024. Notice of the written hearing was e-mailed to the parties on April 25, 2024.

3The applicant's initial written submissions were due on November 20, 2024. On December 20, 2024, the Tribunal reached out to the applicant by telephone to advise that no submissions had been received. The applicant indicated she is withdrawing her application. The Tribunal obtained the applicant's e-mail address from her and sent the Notice of Withdrawal form to her on that e-mail address. The Tribunal sent follow up e-mails regarding the Notice of Withdrawal form on February 4, 2025, and February 7, 2025, to the applicant. The Tribunal received e-mail from the applicant on February 11, 2025, stating that she is out of the country and will be back on March 20, 2025. The Tribunal reached out to the applicant by telephone on March 28, 2025, and left her a voicemail regarding the Notice of Withdrawal form. The applicant has not filed any written submissions with the Tribunal to date, and there has been no motion made to extend the submission deadlines.

4The respondent filed its written submissions on December 6, 2024.

5The respondent sent e-mail to the Tribunal on May 6, 2025, requesting the status of the withdrawal of this matter.

6The Tribunal has not received the Notice of Withdrawal form to date from the applicant.

ISSUES

7The 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 ("MIG") limit?

ii. Is the applicant entitled to an income replacement benefit in the amount of $400.00 per week from December 19, 2020, to present and ongoing?

iii. Is the applicant entitled to $2,175.91 for the cost of a psychological assessment, proposed by Alliance Diagnostics Treatment Inc. in a treatment plan/OCF-18 dated November 25, 2021, and denied on December 15, 2021

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

ANALYSIS

8Since the applicant did not file a Notice of Withdrawal with the Tribunal, the parties' file was not closed, and I will proceed with the hearing pursuant to s. 7(2) of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act. I find that the applicant had notice of the written hearing.

9The applicant has the onus of demonstrating that she should be removed from the MIG, she is entitled to an income replacement benefit and the proposed psychological assessment is reasonable and necessary.

10As no submissions or evidence have been filed with the Tribunal by the applicant, I find that the applicant has not met the evidentiary burden to demonstrate entitlement for these benefit and assessment. I further find that no Notice of Motion has been filed seeking to extend the applicant's submission deadline.

ORDER

11As no submissions or evidence have been filed with the Tribunal by the applicant, I find that the applicant has not demonstrated that she should be removed from the MIG or that she is entitled to an income replacement benefit and assessment in dispute.

12The application is dismissed.