Citation: Parker v. Gore Mutual Insurance Company, 2026 ONLAT 24-012010/AABS

Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number: 24-012010/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:

Roy Parker

Applicant

and

Gore Mutual Insurance Company

Respondent

DECISION

ADJUDICATOR:

Melanie Malach

APPEARANCES:

For the Applicant:

Steven Wilder, Counsel

For the Respondent:

Youeel Ataalla, Counsel

HEARD:

By way of written submissions

OVERVIEW

1Roy Parker, the applicant, was involved in an automobile accident on March 30, 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 benefits by the respondent, Gore Mutual Insurance Company, 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 a non-earner benefit (“NEB”) of $185.00 per week from April 27, 2023 to ongoing?

ii. Is the applicant entitled to $2,920.04 for physiotherapy and massage therapy services, proposed by Sabga Physiotherapy in a treatment plan submitted on September 11, 2023?

iii. Is the applicant entitled to $4,538.82 ($8,190.11 less $3,651.29 approved) for psychotherapy services, proposed by OSR Clinics in a treatment plan submitted on November 1, 2023?

iv. Is the applicant entitled to $256.48 ($587.96 less $331.48 approved) for travel expenses and prescriptions, submitted on a claim form (“OCF-6”) dated March 6, 2024?

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

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

vii. Is the applicant entitled to costs against the respondent in the amount of $106.00?

RESULT

3I find that the applicant is entitled to a NEB of $185.00 per week from April 27, 2023 to March 27, 2025, plus interest.

4I find that the applicant is entitled to $2,920.04 for physiotherapy and massage therapy services, proposed in the treatment plan submitted on September 11, 2023, plus interest.

5I find that the applicant is not entitled to the balance of the treatment plan for psychological services submitted on November 1, 2023.

6I find that the applicant is entitled to $87.80 in transportation expenses, plus interest.

7I find that the respondent is not liable to pay an award.

8I find that the applicant is not entitled to costs.

PROCEDURAL ISSUES

9By correspondence dated February 18, 2026, the Tribunal advised both the applicant and the respondent that their submissions were not in compliance with Rule 9.4.5 of the Licence Appeal Tribunal Rules, 2023. The applicant was advised that his submissions exceed the page limits and the respondent was advised that it had used an incorrect font.

10In response to the Tribunal’s correspondence, the applicant filed a Notice of Motion on March 6, 2026, for an order granting leave to rely on his “reformatted” submissions or in the alternative to rely on their original submissions up to page 15, and any portion after page 15 not be considered.

11I have relied upon the applicant’s “reformatted” submissions which are identical in substance to the original submissions as there are no changes to the wording, punctuation, citations or argument. I further find that the “reformatted” submissions raise no new issues, contain no new arguments and introduce no new evidence. I find that the formatting changes made comply with the 15-page limit in accordance with the CCRO.

12The respondent in response to the Tribunal’s correspondence, also filed a Notice of Motion on March 6, 2026, for an order granting leave to rely on its “reformatted” submissions or in the alternative, an order that the original submissions be considered notwithstanding that the incorrect font was used.

13I have relied upon the respondent’s “reformatted” submissions which now comply with the font requirements set out in the CCRO.

14I thank both parties for responding the Tribunal’s request in a timely manner.

ANALYSIS

Entitlement to a Non-Earner Benefit (“NEB”)

15I find that the applicant is entitled to a NEB. He has established, on a balance of probabilities, that he suffers a complete inability to carry on a normal life as a result of the accident.

16Section 12(1) of the Schedule provides that an insurer shall pay a NEB to an insured person who sustains an impairment as a result of an accident, if the insured person suffers a complete inability to carry on a normal life as a result of and within 104 weeks after the accident. Section 3(7)(a) defines “a complete inability to carry on a normal life” as “an impairment that continuously prevents the person from engaging in substantially all of the activities in which the person ordinarily engaged before the accident.”

17The Court of Appeal set out the guiding principles for NEB entitlement in Heath v. Economical Insurance Company, 2009 ONCA 391 (“Heath”), which generally focuses on a comparison of the applicant’s pre- and post- accident activities.

18For the applicant to prove that he sustained injuries that continuously prevent him from engaging in substantially all of his pre-accident activities, he must present a thorough analysis and comparison of activities that he could do before and after the accident. The applicant must first identify the activities in which he used to engage, along with their frequency and importance.

19The applicant submits that he meets the test for entitlement to a NEB and claims entitlement from April 27, 2023 and ongoing. He relies upon the clinical notes and records (“CNRs”) of Dr. Nick Koutras, family physician, which detail the impact of the accident and support his frequent visits for management of his pain and ongoing symptoms. He also relies on Dr. Koutras’ Prognosis Letter, dated February 10, 2025, which details the applicant’s ongoing issues, need for treatment and ongoing qualification for NEBs. The applicant relies on the Psychological Assessment report of Dr. Oren Amitay, psychologist, and Malini Ondrovcik, psychotherapist, dated September 18, 2023, which diagnosed him with an adjustment disorder with anxiety and depressed mood and somatic symptom disorder with predominant pain, persistent. The report notes that the applicant has to pace himself, work more slowly and take frequent breaks, when performing his activities of daily living and that he had withdrawn from his usual hobbies and social activities. The applicant further relies on the Chronic Pain Assessment report of Dr. Mark Goldstein, dated September 24, 2024, which diagnosed him with chronic pain throughout his spinal column, as well as his right shoulder, knee and ankle, and summarized his pre-accident and post-accident functionality.

20The respondent submits that the applicant is not entitled to a NEB. By letter dated December 12, 2023, it denied the applicant’s entitlement to a NEB based on the Insurer’s Examination (“IE”) Multidisciplinary Assessment report, prepared by Dr. Andrew Kertesz, neurologist, Dr. John Heitzner, physiatrist, Dr. Anson Liu, psychiatrist, and Ms. Kelly Wendt, occupational therapist, dated November 28, 2023. The assessors collectively agreed that the applicant did not sustain an impairment that continuously prevents him from engaging in substantially all of the activities in which he ordinarily engaged before the accident.

21The respondent submits that the applicant experienced a work-related back injury in 2009 and subsequently retired following this injury and has been receiving Canada Pension Plan Disability (“CPPD”) benefits ever since. The respondent argues that given the minor nature of the subject accident, the minimal injuries following the accident, and the severity of his pre-existing injury, it is unlikely that the applicant’s activities and life circumstances before the accident were substantially impacted by the accident since his quality of life prior to the accident was significantly impaired. The respondent further argues that any inability to carry on a normal life is more likely attributable to these long-standing pre-existing conditions rather than the subject accident.

22The respondent further submits that even if the applicant is found to be entitled to a NEB, his CPPD benefits would be deducted from his weekly entitlement amount as per section 47(1) of the Schedule. According to his CPPD file, he was receiving a weekly disability benefit of $142.16.

23I find that the applicant has proven entitlement to a NEB.

24I find that it is clear from the medical evidence provided, that prior to the accident the applicant performed household duties, repaired cars, repaired computers, hunted, fished and engaged in regular social activities. While he acknowledges that he had a pre-existing back impairment, he was still actively involved in these activities prior to the accident. I find that the medical evidence establishes that as a result of the accident, he suffered physical and psychological impairments that continuously prevent him from engaging in substantially all of the activities in which he ordinarily engaged before the accident.

25I find that the CNRs of Dr. Koutras, support the applicant’s ongoing complaints and functional limitations. I agree with the applicant that as Dr. Koutras was the applicant’s family doctor from prior to the accident, he was in the best position to opine on the applicant’s level of function prior to and after the accident. I find that Dr. Koutras specifically references the applicant’s limitations affecting all aspects of his activities of daily living. In his letter “To whom it may concern”, dated February 25, 2025, Dr. Koutras notes that the accident caused aggravation of the applicant’s chronic pain and his ability to stand or walk for long periods, which greatly affects his social life and enjoyment of activities he was able to do prior to the accident. His Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (“PTSD”) has also been greatly aggravated, which affects all aspects of his life especially social activities.

26I find upon review of the Psychological Assessment report of Dr. Amitay and Ms. Ondrovcik, dated September 18, 2023, that the applicant reported that his symptoms have impacted his activities of daily living, and that he has to pace himself, work much more slowly, and take frequent breaks. He noted that he has not been engaging in his usual hobbies and has not taken on any new projects around the house, so his activity level has decreased significantly. The applicant was diagnosed with an adjustment disorder with anxiety and depressed mood and somatic symptom disorder with predominant pain, persistent. This diagnosis was supported by Dr. Liu, in her Psychiatry IE report. I find that while Dr. Liu concludes that the applicant did not sustain an impairment that continuously prevents him from engaging in substantially all of the activities in which he ordinarily engaged and refers to the “Current Functional Ability” section for further details, she has not addressed the findings in this section that the applicant is limited in his capacity to perform household tasks which are now undertaken by his wife; that his social activities are limited by pain, depression and anxiety; or that he does not participate in any of the hobbies he previously enjoyed. I find that she has not provided a justification for her conclusion or specifically addressed the reported limitations or how the psychological diagnosis made affects the applicant’s functional abilities.

27I find Dr. Goldstein’s Chronic Pain Assessment report persuasive, because there are specific details provided as to the applicant’s pre-accident daily activities and responsibilities compared to his post-accident limitations in these activities. The applicant advised that he had a pre-accident history of lower back pain that began in 2007 secondary to a work-related injury and subsequent discectomy in 2008. He reported that he had daily pain although he was able to manage his activities of daily living, take care of his house, do his household repairs, go hunting, fishing, socializing, take care of the yard, shovel the snow, cut the grass and go grocery shopping. Since the accident, the applicant reported that his low back pain has worsened, he has neck, upper back shoulder, right knee and right ankle pain, headaches, depressed mood, fatigue, anxiety when on the road, and poor sleep. As a result of these impairments, Dr. Goldstein concluded that the applicant is impeded in various daily living activities including household maintenance activities and recreational activities, which are detailed in the report. I find that the reported limitations made by the applicant are consistent with the medical evidence submitted including the IE assessment reports.

28I further find that the IE In-Home report of Ms. Wendt, sets out the applicant’s post-accident functional status and social situation which supports his entitlement to a NEB. I find that Ms. Wendt concluded that overall, the applicant demonstrated a consistent effort, and the assessment is considered an accurate evaluation of his functional abilities. Functionally, the applicant reported independence with most personal care tasks but noted difficulty with doing so. He can only complete grocery shopping with the accompaniment of his spouse as he has a reduced ability to lift and carry. He is able to complete some property maintenance tasks but at a reduced frequency and sometimes he requires assistance. He is unable to perform vehicle repairs independently and he has not returned to repairing computers, fishing or hunting since the accident, which are the most meaningful activities in his life prior to the accident. In terms of social engagement, he occasionally has a guest over for dinner or will go to a friend’s home for dinner, but otherwise he is not participating in social activities. I find that this report identifies the activities that were most meaningful to the applicant pre-accident, which he is now unable to complete as a result of the injuries sustained in the accident.

29I find upon review of Dr. Heitzner’s IE Paper Review report, he refers to his previous in-person report dated November 17, 2023, which found on examination that the applicant had self-restricted range of motion to his cervical spine, thoracic spine, lumbar spine and right shoulder. He also self-restricted a deep knee bend and bilateral lunges. Dr. Heitzner concluded that there were no objective neurological impairments, but he had pain on light palpation, not reproducible with distraction. While Dr. Heitzner refers to his previous report dated November 17, 2023 for specific details on the applicant’s functional activities, I find that Dr. Heitzner made limited comments on the applicant’s functional status. It notes that he can only do what he can when asked about household chores and about two to three days a week; when he has increasing pain, he cannot do anything. On the remaining days, he does less. With respect to hobbies, he now has to go hunting with a partner. I therefore do not give significant weight to Dr. Heitzner’s report compared to the reports noted above that went into specific details about the applicant’s pre- and post-accident daily activities.

30I do not accept the respondent’s submission that CPPD benefits would be deducted from the applicant’s weekly NEB entitlement pursuant to s. 47(1) of the Schedule. Pursuant to s. 47(1) of the Schedule, the insurer may deduct any “temporary disability benefits” or “other periodic benefit” being received by the insured person in respect of a period following an accident and in respect of an impairment that occurred before the accident. While there is no dispute that the applicant was in receipt of CPPD benefits, the respondent has not provided any evidence or submissions that CPPD benefits are temporary or periodic. By definition, CPPD benefits are designed for long-term, severe, and prolonged disabilities. To quality the condition must be, or be expected to be, of indefinite duration or likely to result in death. I therefore do not find that the respondent has persuaded me with evidence or submissions that CPPD benefits are temporary or periodic benefits that would be deductible pursuant to s. 47(1) of the Schedule.

31For the reasons outlined above, I find that the applicant has proven on a balance of probabilities that he is entitled to a NEB of $185.00 per week for the period from April 27, 2023 to March 27, 2025.

Medical and Rehabilitation Benefits

32To receive payment for a treatment plan under s. 15 and 16 of the Schedule, the applicant bears the burden of demonstrating on a balance of probabilities that the benefit is reasonable and necessary as a result of the accident. To do so, the applicant should identify that the goals of treatment are reasonable, how the goals would be met to a reasonable degree and that the overall costs of achieving them are reasonable.

Entitlement to the Treatment Plan for Physiotherapy and Massage Therapy Services

33I find that the applicant is entitled to the treatment plan for physiotherapy and massage therapy services submitted on September 11, 2023.

34The applicant claims entitlement to $2,920.04 for physiotherapy and massage therapy services, proposed by Sabga Physiotherapy, in a treatment plan submitted on September 11, 2023. The treatment plan recommends 24 sessions of physiotherapy and 8 sessions of massage therapy. The goals of the treatment plan are pain reduction, increase in strength, increase range of motion, and return to activities of normal living.

35The applicant submits that the treatment plan is reasonable and necessary. He relies upon the CNR of Dr. Koutras, dated September 29, 2023 and his letter dated February 2025, which recommends further physiotherapy and massage therapy. He further relies upon the report of Dr. Goldstein dated September 24, 2024, that diagnoses him with chronic pain and recommends further physiotherapy. The applicant submits that despite the denial of the treatment plan, the treatment was incurred as set out in the Statement of Account from C.A.R.E. Institute. The applicant further submits that following the s. 44 assessments, the respondent removed him from the MIG but maintained its denial of the subject treatments.

36The respondent submits that by letter dated September 11, 2023, the subject treatment plan was denied on the basis that the applicant’s injuries sustained in the accident were considered minor and treatable within the confines of the MIG. By letter dated November 28, 2023, the respondent denied the subject treatment plan based on the Multidisciplinary IE report dated November 17, 2023, which concluded that the treatment plan was not reasonable and necessary. The respondent submits that while the applicant was removed from the MIG due to his psychiatric impairments, based on the IE Physiatry Addendum report of Dr. Heitzner, dated March 15, 2024, the respondent maintained the denial of the subject treatment plan via correspondence dated March 26, 2024.

37I find that the CNR of Dr. Koutras dated September 29, 2023, which recommends further physiotherapy and massage therapy, is contemporaneous to the subject treatment plan in dispute. Dr. Koutras also recommends further physiotherapy in his letter dated February 10, 2025. I give weight to the recommendation of a treating practitioner who is involved in the ongoing care of a patient when accessing the evidence before me. I further find that Dr. Goldstein recommends further physiotherapy for the treatment of the applicant’s chronic physical injuries.

38I give little weight to the conclusion of Dr. Heitzner that the subject treatment plan is not reasonable and necessary. I find that while Dr. Heitzner concluded that the applicant’s injuries were MIG, he noted the applicant’s ongoing complaints on physical examination and the restrictions in standing alignment and on active range of motion. He further notes the applicant’s report that he found the combination of physiotherapy and massage therapy led to increasing range of motion and mild improvement of pain. I find that Dr. Heitzner concludes in his report that he believes from a musculoskeletal point of view, that the applicant’s accident-related soft tissue injuries are minor in nature. However, he notes that the applicant does have a pre-existing history of lower back pain, but the family physician’s records were not sufficient enough to confirm whether his pre-existing lower back pain would remove him from the MIG. He states that if further information becomes available, he will gladly review his opinion. He then subsequently provides an Addendum IE report where an MRI of the Lumbar Spine dated January 24, 2024 is reviewed, which he concluded did not change his previous opinion. He states that the subject treatment plan is not reasonable and necessary from a musculoskeletal point of view as it would not lead to any significant change in the applicant’s current level of function or subjective complaints. I find that Dr. Heitzner does not explain this conclusion or on what basis he is making this finding. I further find that this conclusion is subsequently rebutted by the additional CNRs of Dr. Koutras and the report of Dr. Goldstein, both of whom recommend further ongoing physiotherapy treatment for the treatment of the applicant’s impairments.

39I find upon review of the Statement of Account from C.A.R.E. Institute, that despite the denial of the subject treatment plan, the applicant attended for physiotherapy treatment from September 24, 2024 to February 5, 2025. I find that the fact the applicant attended for and received the proposed physiotherapy and massage therapy treatment, supports that he received a benefit from the treatment which therefore supports that that the treatment plan is reasonable and necessary.

40For the reasons outlined above, I find that the applicant has proven on a balance of probabilities that the treatment plan submitted on September 11, 2023, for physiotherapy and massage therapy, is reasonable and necessary.

Entitlement to the Balance of the Treatment Plan for Psychological Services

41I find that the applicant is not entitled to the balance of the treatment plan for psychological services.

42The applicant claims entitlement to $4,538.82 ($8,190.11 less $3,651.29 approved) for psychotherapy services, proposed by OSR Clinics in a treatment plan submitted on November 1, 2023. A copy of this treatment plan was not provided for my review.

43The applicant did not provide submissions with respect to this issue.

44The respondent submits that the treatment plan was partially approved on November 14, 2024. It refused to fund items the following items:

12 – Heart Rate Variability Feedback sessions: $1,795.32 12 – EMG Biofeedback sessions: $1,795.32 2 – Reassessments: $299.22 2 – Discussion about reassessment: $99.74 Service, planning: $149.61 1 Progress Report/Final Report: $149.61 Physician Consultation: $250.00

45I find that as the applicant has not provided submissions on this issue, he has not proven on a balance of probabilities that he is entitled to the balance of the treatment plan for psychological services, submitted November 1, 2023.

Entitlement to the balance of the OCF-6 for Travel Expenses and Prescriptions

46I find that the applicant is partially entitled to the balance of the OCF-6 for travel expenses and prescriptions.

47The applicant claims entitlement to $256.48 ($587.96 less $331.48 approved) for travel expenses and prescriptions, submitted on an OCF-6, dated March 6, 2024. The OCF-6 claims the following:

Travel Expenses – 1487 Km – 40 = 1437.4 x $0.40 $574.96 Shoppers Drug Mart Expenses - $4.00 + $4.00 $8.00 Leamington Hospital Parking Fees (Dr. Farooqui) - $5.00 $5.00

48The applicant submits that he incurred these expenses to attend medical treatment, due to the injuries he sustained in the accident. He argues that the respondent denied these expenses and requested records to confirm that the trips were for accident-related reasons. In response, the applicant submits that he complied with the respondent’s requests. The applicant therefore argues that the expenses are payable, as they were either to attend for or obtain medical care at medical facilities. The applicant further argues that despite providing the requested information and clarification, the respondent did not provide any updated response to the applicant, thereby confirming that there are no additional grounds for their denial.

49The respondent submits that by letter dated March 19, 2024, it partially approved the OCF-6 and issued payment in the amount of $331.48. It advised that it would not pay for the mileage or parking fees from Leamington Hospital because it had not been provided with the CNRS beyond July 5, 2023 to show whether the visits were related to the accident. It also denied the mileage charges to his counsel’s office. The respondent further advised that mileage to medical appointments relating to the accident have a 50km deductible per roundtrip.

50The respondent further submits that if the three round trips to Leamington Hospital which occurred on September 11, 2023, December 6, 2023, and December 14, 2023, are determined to be as a result of the subject accident, after adding the $5.00 parking fee, the applicant would only be entitled to an additional $87.80 in transportation expenses.

51The Superintendent’s Guideline No. 04/16: Transportation Expense Guideline provides that an insurer is liable to pay for all reasonable and necessary transportation expenses for each trip that the insured person makes to and from treatment sessions, counselling sessions, training sessions, assessments and examinations.

52I agree with the respondent’s submission that mileage to medical appointments relating to the accident have a 50km deductible per round trip. I further find that the applicant is only entitled to mileage for the medical appointments he attended that are related to the subject accident.

53I find that based on review of the records from Erie Shores HealthCare, the applicant is entitled to the mileage for the appointments on September 11, 2023, December 6, 2023, and December 14, 2023. I accept the applicant’s submission that these visits were related to his accident impairments as the CNRs of Dr. Susanne Farooqui indicate that the applicant was involved in the subject accident and believes that this was the onset of his right inguinal hernia. I similarly find that the parking charges in the amount of $5.00 are also payable. The applicant is therefore entitled to $87.80 in additional transportation expenses.

54I find that the applicant is not entitled to the mileage for the visits to his legal representative’s office because these visits were not for medical appointments.

55With respect to the balance remaining, the applicant has not directed me to any other specific expenses that he claims are payable.

56For the reasons outlined above, I find that the applicant has proven on a balance of probabilities that he is entitled to an additional amount of $87.80 in transportation expenses.

Interest

57Interest applies on the payment of any overdue benefits pursuant to s. 51 of the Schedule. As I have found that the applicant is entitled to NEBs, the treatment plan for physiotherapy and $87.80 in transportation expenses, interest is payable pursuant to s. 51 of the Schedule.

Award

58The applicant sought an award under s. 10 of Reg. 664. Under s. 10, the Tribunal may grant an award of up to 50 percent of the total benefits payable if it finds that an insurer unreasonably withheld or delayed the payment of benefits.

59The applicant provided particulars of his award claim on March 28, 2025. He submits that the respondent’s approach to his claim was excessive, imprudent, stubborn, inflexible, unyielding and immoderate. He further claims that the respondent’s handling of his claim justifies an award because the respondent failed to meet its obligations when dealing with the applicant; failed to properly investigate the applicants entitlement to benefits and consider information provided to it; sent the applicant confusing, misleading and contradictory correspondence about his entitlement to benefits; prevented the applicant from accessing benefits and denied benefits based on inaccurate and irrelevant considerations; failed to follow reasonable standards for the handling of the applicants claim; and failed to engage meaningfully in efforts to resolve the issues in dispute.

60The respondent submits that an award is not ordered simply because the insurer made an incorrect decision. The onus is on the applicant to establish that an award is warranted due to an unreasonable withholding or delay of benefits and the insurer’s conduct must be excessive, imprudent, stubborn, inflexible, unyielding or immoderate. The respondent submits that it promptly responded to the treatment plans as submitted by the applicant and each denial letter clearly indicates that there is no compelling medical documentation to support the benefits requested and the reasons for the denials. In addition, it submits that after removing the applicant from the MIG based on psychological reasons, it had no obligation to approve the treatment plans that are reassessed and determined to be not reasonable and necessary.

61I find that while I have found that the applicant is entitled to a NEB and partially entitled to the treatment plans in dispute, an award is not warranted simply because I found that the respondent made an incorrect decision. I find that the respondent was entitled to rely on the reports of its IE assessors when assessing the claim and to make decisions based on these reports. I find that the applicant has not directed me to any evidence that the respondent disregarded evidence which resulted in the respondent unreasonably withholding or delaying payment of the disputed benefits. I further find that the respondent assessed the medical documentation in its possession and reassessed the denied treatment plan for physiotherapy services following his removal from the MIG. While the applicant disagrees with the assessment by the respondent, I do not find that the respondent unreasonably withheld or delayed the payment of any benefits.

62For the reasons outlined above, I find that the applicant has not proven on a balance of probabilities that he is entitled to an award.

COSTS

63Rule 19.1 of the Licence Appeal Tribunal Rules, 2023, provides that a party may request costs of the proceeding, if they believe that the other party has acted unreasonably, frivolously, vexatiously, or in bad faith during the proceedings. Rule 19.2 provides that a request for costs may be made to the Tribunal in writing or orally at a case conference or hearing, at any time before the decision or order is released. Rule 19.4 further sets out the requirements for that request, which must include the reasons for the request and the particulars of the alleged conduct. Rule 19.5 lists the factors to consider when adjudicating a request for costs.

64The applicant in his submissions claims costs of at least $106.00 to offset the filing fee of the LAT Application, and an additional amount to recognize the time and effort involved in proceeding with this Hearing.

65The respondent did not provide any responding submissions.

66I find that the applicant has not provided sufficient submissions as to why he is entitled to costs in this matter except to argue that he should be ordered costs to offset the filing fee of the LAT Application and the time and effort involved in proceeding with this Hearing. I find that the applicant has not provided sufficient evidence to support his position that the respondent acted unreasonably, frivolously, vexatiously, or in bad faith during these proceedings. While the applicant disagrees with the respondent’s position on the issues in dispute, there is no evidence of any misconduct during this proceeding.

2For the reasons outlined above, I decline to award costs and I find that the respondent’s conduct during this hearing does not meet the criteria set out in Rule 19.1.

ORDER

67For the reasons outlined above, I find:

i. The applicant is entitled to a NEB of $185.00 per week from April 27, 2023 to March 27, 2025, plus interest;

ii. The applicant is entitled to $2,920.04 for physiotherapy and massage therapy services, proposed in the treatment plan submitted on September 11, 2023, plus interest;

iii. The applicant is not entitled to the balance of the treatment plan for psychological services submitted on November 1, 2023;

iv. The applicant is entitled to $87.80 in transportation expenses, plus interest;

v. The respondent is not liable to pay an award; and

vi. The applicant is not entitled to costs.