Licence Appeal Tribunal
Citation: Nguyen v. Aviva Insurance Company of Canada, 2025 ONLAT 23-015127/AABS Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number: 23-015127/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:
Ban Nguyen Applicant
and
Aviva Insurance Company of Canada Respondent
DECISION
ADJUDICATOR: Harouna Saley Sidibé
APPEARANCES:
For the Applicant: No Submissions Filed
For the Respondent: Maggie Morgan, Counsel
HEARD: By way of written submissions
OVERVIEW
1Ban Nguyen, the applicant, was involved in an automobile accident on February 29, 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 Insurance Company of Canada, and applied to the Licence Appeal Tribunal - Automobile Accident Benefits Service (the "Tribunal") for resolution of the dispute.
ISSUES
2The issues in dispute are:
i. Is the applicant entitled to $3,200.00 for chiropractic services, proposed by Pain Rehabilitation Clinic in a treatment plan/OCF-18 ("plan") dated August 26, 2022?
ii. Is the applicant entitled to $2,400.00 for a general practitioner assessment, proposed by Dr. San Dui (Chiropractor) in a treatment plan dated August 26, 2022?
iii. Is the applicant entitled to $3,200.00 for chiropractic services, proposed by Pain Rehabilitation Clinic in a plan dated November 3, 2023?
iv. Is the respondent liable to pay an award under s. 10 of Reg. 664 because it unreasonably withheld or delayed payments to the applicant?
v. Is the applicant entitled to interest on any overdue payment of benefits?
vi. Is the respondent entitled to Costs?
3In his submissions, the respondent requested that the dispute be dismissed and costs awarded. In accordance with Rule 19.2 of the Licence Appeal Tribunal Rules, 2023 (the "Rules"), the issue of costs is added as an issue in dispute to this hearing.
RESULT
4The applicant is not entitled to the issues in dispute.
5The respondent is not entitled to costs.
6The application is dismissed.
ANALYSIS
Proceeding in the absence of the applicant
7I find that the Tribunal has fulfilled its notice obligations and that I may proceed with this written hearing.
8Proceeding with a written hearing where a party fails to participate under section 7(2) of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, RSO 1990, c. S.22 (the "SPPA"), requires the Tribunal to be satisfied that the party has been given notice of the written hearing in compliance with ss. 6(1) and 6(4) of the SPPA. It must also be satisfied that the party has not requested a change of format for the hearing pursuant to s. 6(4)(b) of the SPPA.
9A case conference was held via teleconference on April 25, 2024, but the applicant and his counsel did not attend. No explanation was provided for their absence. The Case Conference Report and Order ("CCRO") dated May 1, 2024, outlined the issues in dispute and scheduled the matter for a written hearing.
10On May 9, 2024, the Tribunal sent a Notice for Written Hearing to both parties, scheduling the hearing for January 10, 2025. The notice was sent by email to the applicant's counsel at the addresses provided to the Tribunal in the application form filed on December 12, 2023.
11As a result of the timeline established in the CCRO and the Notice of Written Hearing, the applicant's written submissions were due on December 11, 2024, and the respondent's submissions were due on December 27, 2024. The applicant's reply submissions, if any, were due on January 3, 2025.
12The applicant did not file his submissions by the deadlines specified in the CCRO and the Notice of Written Hearing. Additionally, the applicant did not respond to the reminder email about these missing submissions, which was sent by the Tribunal on January 31, 2025.
13There is no indication that the applicant's contact information changed or was otherwise incorrect in Tribunal records. The applicant is required under Rule 4.4 of the Rules to provide updated contact information in writing to the Tribunal.
14The respondent filed its submissions on December 27, 2024, in accordance with the timeline set out by the CCRO.
15Given the above, I am satisfied that the parties received a Notice of Written Hearing as required by ss. 6(1) and 6(4) of the SPPA. Furthermore, I am also satisfied that neither party requested a change of format from a written hearing under s. 6(4)(b) of the SPPA.
16For the reasons stated above, I may proceed with this written hearing pursuant to s. 7(2) of the SPPA.
Has the applicant met his burden?
17I find that the applicant had the opportunity to make submissions for this hearing but did not to do so. Therefore, he has not met his burden on the issues in dispute.
18As established in Scarlett v. Belair Insurance, 2015 ONSC 3635, the evidentiary onus is on the applicant to demonstrate that he is entitled to any claimed benefits.
19The applicant failed to meet this onus as he did not submit written submissions or evidence to the Tribunal within the timeline set by the CCRO and as noted in the Notice of Written Hearing, above. He also did not submit any evidence or filings between the hearing date of January 10, 2025, and the date of this decision, nor did he contact the Tribunal to request an extension of the submission deadlines.
20Therefore, he has not met his burden and is not entitled to the benefits in dispute.
Is the respondent entitled to Costs?
21I find that the respondent has not demonstrated that it is entitled to costs.
22Pursuant to Rule 19.1, when a party believes that another party in a proceeding has acted unreasonably, frivolously, vexatiously, or in bad faith, that party may make a request to the Tribunal for costs.
23In its submissions, the respondent relies on Nguyen v Aviva Insurance Company, 2024 CanLII 10549 (ON LAT). This case pertains to the dismissal of the application because the applicant failed to provide any submissions. It did not address costs.
24Furthermore, the respondent did not provide submissions or direct me to evidence of the applicant's conduct that is alleged to be unreasonable, frivolous, vexatious, or in bad faith in accordance with the Rules. The respondent also did not comply with s. 19.3 of the Rules, which requires that a submission on costs specify the requested amount. No amount was included in the respondent's submissions.
25Therefore, I conclude that the respondent is not entitled to costs.
ORDER
26For the reasons above, it is ordered that:
i. The applicant is not entitled to the issues in dispute.
ii. The respondent is not entitled to costs.
iii. The application is dismissed.
Released: August 11, 2025
Harouna Saley Sidibé
Adjudicator