Citation: Touliakov v. CUMIS General Insurance Company, 2026 ONLAT 24-006752/AABS

Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number: 24-006752/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:

Evgueni Touliakov

Applicant

and

CUMIS General Insurance Company

Respondent

DECISION

ADJUDICATOR:

Nadia Mauro

APPEARANCES:

For the Applicant:

Alexei Antonov, Counsel

For the Respondent:

Julianne Brimfield, Counsel

HEARD:

By way of written submissions

OVERVIEW

1Evgueni Touliakov, the applicant, was involved in an automobile accident on April 18, 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, CUMIS General Insurance Company, and applied to the Licence Appeal Tribunal - Automobile Accident Benefits Service (the “Tribunal”) for resolution of the dispute.

2The applicant died intestate, and the Tribunal application was commenced by counsel on May 29, 2024. To date, an estate trustee has not been appointed by the Superior Court. No death certificate or documentation has been provided to confirm the time and date of the applicant’s death; however, counsel indicates that the applicant died on the day the application was filed, May 29, 2024.

3A case conference for this application was held on October 17, 2024.

4The Case Conference Report and Order (“CCRO”), dated October 21, 2024, indicates that counsel for the applicant advised the respondent and the Tribunal that the applicant had passed away and counsel had been making efforts to contact the potential heirs to ascertain the estates trustee and obtain instructions. The case conference was adjourned on consent.

5A resumption of the case conference was held on November 28, 2024.

6The CCRO, dated December 3, 2024, indicates that at the commencement of the case conference, counsel did not have any additional information as to the appointment of the estate trustee. Adjudicator Zotalis decided to continue with the case conference and set the matter down for a written hearing to provide counsel with additional time to ascertain who is the estate trustee.

7A written hearing was scheduled for August 15, 2025.

8The submissions for the applicant, filed on July 16, 2025, do not indicate whether an estate trustee has been appointed to represent the applicant for his claim for accident benefits.

9As a result, on February 2, 2026, the Tribunal sent email correspondence to the parties asking for confirmation of whether an estate trustee has been appointed pursuant to the CCROs dated October 21, 2024 and December 3, 2024, by no later than February 10, 2026.

10On February 11, 2026, the Tribunal sent follow-up correspondence with respect to the status of an estate trustee.

11On February 24, 2026, I issued an Order requesting that counsel clarify whether an estate trustee has been appointed, and who is providing instructions in this case by March 9, 2026.

12On March 9, 2026, counsel responded that no estate trustee has been appointed to date.

ISSUES

13The issues in dispute are:

1. 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 limit?
2. Is the applicant entitled to a non-earner benefit of $185.00 per week from May 16, 2023, to date and ongoing?
3. Is the applicant entitled to $3,308.00 for physiotherapy services, proposed by Downsview Healthcare Inc., in a treatment plan (“OCF-18”) dated April 27, 2023?
4. Is the applicant entitled to $2,514.48 for physiotherapy services, proposed by Downsview Healthcare Inc., in an OCF-18 dated June 6, 2023?
5. Is the applicant entitled to $2,052.00 for physiotherapy services, proposed by Downsview Healthcare Inc., in an OCF-18 dated June 29, 2023?
6. Is the applicant entitled to $2,486.00 for a psychological examination, proposed by Downsview Healthcare Inc., in an OCF-18 dated July 12, 2023?
7. Is the applicant entitled to $226.00 ($1,322.50 less $1,096.50 approved) for physiotherapy services, proposed by Downsview Healthcare Inc., in an OCF-18 dated August 1, 2023?
8. Is the applicant entitled to $2,313.72 for chiropractic services, proposed by Downsview Healthcare Inc., in an OCF-18 dated August 14, 2023?
9. Is the applicant entitled to $1,302.72 for physiotherapy services, proposed by Downsview Healthcare Inc., in an OCF-18 dated September 11, 2023?
10. Is the applicant entitled to $2,097.72 for psychological services, proposed by Downsview Healthcare Inc., in an OCF-18 dated November 9, 2023?
11. Is the applicant entitled to $2,000.00 for chiropractic services, proposed by Downsview Healthcare Inc., in an OCF-18 dated November 3, 2023?
12. Is the applicant entitled to $2,486.00 for a chronic pain assessment, proposed by Downsview Healthcare Inc., in an OCF-18 dated November 10, 2023?
13. Is the applicant entitled to $4,204.32 for psychological services, proposed by Downsview Healthcare Inc., in an OCF-18 dated November 9, 2023?
14. Is the respondent liable to pay an award under s. 10 of Reg. 664 because it unreasonably withheld or delayed payments to the applicant?
15. Is the applicant entitled to interest on any overdue payment of benefits?

RESULT

14The application was not properly continued. The counsel who filed the application has not satisfied the Tribunal that he had legal standing to continue a claim on behalf of the deceased.

15The application is dismissed.

ANALYSIS

The application was not properly continued

16Counsel for the applicant submits that he has participated in the proceeding in good faith and in accordance with the Tribunal’s directions, and in keeping with the applicant’s latest instructions. Counsel submits that the application proceeded based on the applicant’s last clear and unambiguous instructions, provided while he was alive, competent, and actively advancing his claim. Counsel submits that he re-confirmed said instructions with the applicant’s daughter, and closest next-of-kin, and has delivered written submission as directed by the Tribunal’s Order issued at the time of the case conference.

17I note that the Tribunal is a creature of statute, and authority in this case lies in the Insurance Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. I.8 (“the Act”).

18The legal requirement under Section 280(2) of the Act states that the "insured person"...may apply to the Licence Appeal Tribunal to resolve a dispute…". A legally recognized representative, either an executor or an estate trustee can “stand in the shoes” of the deceased and pursue a claim for accident benefits.

19The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction with respect to estate matters. Jurisdiction to appoint an estate trustee belongs to the Superior Court of Justice pursuant to the Estates Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. E.21 and the Rules of Civil Procedure.

20The Licence Appeal Tribunal Rules (“Rules”) do not provide a process for the Tribunal to appoint an estate trustee. The Statutory Powers Procedure Act, RSO 1990, c S.22 (“SPPA”) applies to neither a proceeding to which the Rules of Civil Procedure apply, nor to a proceeding before the Superior Court of Justice.

21Counsel submits that in the absence of an appointed estate trustee, the last known instructions remain the only lawful and reliable basis upon which counsel can advance the matter. I disagree. Pursuant to section 23 of the SPPA, the Tribunal may make orders it considers proper to prevent abuse of its processes. Here, I am not satisfied that counsel has authority to continue this application.

22The circumstance surrounding the applicant’s death and filing of this application are unclear. Counsel has not provided a death certificate or documentation to confirm the time and date of the applicant’s death to establish that the application was brought prior to his passing. Counsel has also not provided any evidence or made any submissions with respect to the cause of the applicant’s death and if it is in any way related to the accident. More critically, counsel has not provided any evidence to support that he received all-encompassing instructions from the applicant to bring the within application and continue to a written hearing thereafter. I note that the application is electronically completed and is not signed by handwritten signature.

23Even if I accept counsel’s submission that he received instruction to file the application, no explanation has been provided as to why an estate trustee has not been appointed, or if any steps have been taken to appoint an estate trustee between the date of the case conference on October 17, 2024 and August 15, 2025 (the day of the written hearing). What is more, during this 302-day period, there is no evidence to support that any of the applicant’s next-of-kin, or any other person, have been appointed or have made efforts to have an estate trustee appointed and to represent the applicant in this application.

24The Tribunal has no authority to remedy the lack of an estate trustee. I have not been asked to recognize any person as having legal authority to act on behalf of the applicant and note that no such person exists in the claim before me.

25Accordingly, I find that the application was not properly continued and must be dismissed to prevent an abuse of process, as permitted under s. 23 of the SPPA. I note that my findings are consistent with other decisions of the Financial Services Commission of Ontario and the Tribunal, see, for example: Jamil Toma v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 2014 ONFSCDRS 171 and Chandrarajah vs. Economical Insurance, 2024 CanLII 10566 (ON LAT).

26It is not necessary for me to consider the deceased applicant’s entitlement to the disputed treatment plans, interest, and a s.10 award as neither the applicant nor an estate representative acting on his behalf pursued this claim for accident benefits.

ORDER

27For the reasons outlined above, I find that:

1. The application was not properly continued; and
2. The application is dismissed.

28The Tribunal file will be closed.