Lawrence-Lampart v. Aviva Insurance Company of Canada, 2025 CanLII 8002

Licence Appeal Tribunal

Citation: Lawrence-Lampart v. Aviva Insurance Company of Canada, 2025 ONLAT 21-014291/AABS

Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number: 21-014291/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:

Kailah Lawrence-Lampart

Applicant

and

Aviva Insurance Company of Canada

Respondent

DECISION

VICE-CHAIR: Craig Mazerolle

APPEARANCES:

For the Applicant: No submissions

For the Respondent: Bhavpreet Saini, Counsel

HEARD: By way of Written Submissions

OVERVIEW

1Kailah Lawrence-Lampart, the applicant, was involved in an automobile accident on November 29, 2017, 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.

2In a case conference report and order released on February 13, 2023, the Tribunal ordered the dispute to proceed to a preliminary issue written hearing. By way of a preliminary issue decision released on October 20, 2023, the applicant’s application was allowed to proceed.

3In a further case conference report and order released on January 8, 2024, the Tribunal ordered the substantive issues in dispute to proceed to a written hearing. The Tribunal scheduled a written hearing for August 16, 2024, with the Notice of Written Hearing e-mailed to the parties on January 11, 2024.

4The applicant’s initial submissions were due on July 17, 2024. The applicant has not provided written submissions to the Tribunal. There has also been no Notice of Motion seeking to extend the applicant’s initial submissions deadline.

5The respondent filed submissions with the Tribunal, seeking a dismissal of the application. It is also seeking costs in the amount of $4,000.00.

ISSUES

6As listed in the case conference report and order released on January 8, 2024, the substantive 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 $2,200.00 for a psychological assessment, proposed by Marjorie Green in a treatment plan/OCF-18 (“plan”) submitted November 4, 2021, and denied November 18, 2021?

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

ANALYSIS

7Section 7(2) of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. S.22 states that, if notice of a written hearing has been given to a party who does not then participate in the hearing in accordance with the notice, the Tribunal may proceed with the hearing in the absence of that party’s participation. I am satisfied that the parties received notice of the written hearing, so I shall proceed in the applicant’s absence.

8The applicant has the onus of demonstrating removal from the MIG, as well as entitlement to the medical benefit and interest in dispute. By not filing any submissions or evidence with the Tribunal, I find that the applicant has not met this burden.

9I further find that the applicant did not file a Notice of Motion requesting an extension of the initial submission deadline.

COSTS REQUEST

10I do not find the respondent has met the threshold needed to order costs.

11Rule 19.1 of the Licence Appeal Tribunal Rules, 2023 states that the Tribunal may award costs when “another party in a proceeding has acted unreasonably, frivolously, vexatiously, or in bad faith”. Rule 19.5 lists factors the Tribunal shall consider when determining whether to order costs (and, if so, how much).

12Highlighting the lack of written submissions, the respondent supports its costs request by submitting that the applicant “acted unreasonably, frivolously, and/or in bad faith”. I find the respondent has not established that the applicant’s behaviour merits costs. Though I recognize that the applicant breached the submissions deadline from the second case conference report and order (a breach that has prejudiced the respondent and impacted the Tribunal’s ability to carry out an efficient and effective process), I conclude that this breach is remedied through this decision. As such, I do not find a costs order is needed.

ORDER

13As the applicant has made no submissions and tendered no evidence in support of the claims before the Tribunal, the applicant has not demonstrated removal from the MIG, nor has the applicant demonstrated entitlement to the disputed medical benefit and interest.

14The respondent’s request for costs is denied.

15The application is dismissed.