Sivathasan v. TD General Insurance Company, 2026 CanLII 42205

Licence Appeal Tribunal

Citation: Sivathasan v. TD General Insurance Company, 2026 ONLAT 25-004655/AABS

Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number: 25-004655/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:

Sivamathy Sivathasan

Applicant

and

TD General Insurance Company

Respondent

DECISION

ADJUDICATOR: Melanie Malach

APPEARANCES:

For the Applicant: Jono Schneider, Counsel

For the Respondent: Sean Cheskes, Counsel

HEARD: By way of written submissions

OVERVIEW

1Sivamathy Sivathasan, the applicant, was involved in an automobile accident on November 11, 2022, 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, TD General 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 interest in respect of an income replacement benefit from February 5, 2025 to June 10, 2025?

ii. Is the applicant entitled to $6,846.22 for physiotherapy services, proposed by Gibson Wellness in a treatment plan dated October 20, 2023?

iii. Is the applicant entitled to services proposed by Warden Wellness as follows:

a) $9,284.44 for physiotherapy services, in a treatment plan dated April 18, 2024;

b) $6,251.05 for physiotherapy services, in a treatment plan dated April 18, 2024;

c) $8,760.66 for physiotherapy services, in a treatment plan dated May 20, 2024;

d) $2,815.85 for physiotherapy services, in a treatment plan dated August 10, 2024; and

e) $2,815.85 for physiotherapy services, in a treatment plan dated August 10, 2024;

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?

RESULT

3I find that the applicant is not entitled to the treatment plans in dispute, an award or interest.

ANALYSIS

4In the Case Conference Report and Order (“CCRO”), released on August 29, 2025, the Tribunal ordered the dispute to proceed to a written hearing. The Tribunal scheduled a written hearing for February 27, 2026. Notice of the written hearing was sent to the parties on September 4, 2025, using the contact information provided.

5The applicant’s submissions were due on January 28, 2026. The Tribunal has not received the applicant’s written submissions.

6The respondent filed its written submissions on February 13, 2026. The respondent submits that the applicant has failed to file any written submissions and has led no evidence in support of the claim for medical benefits. The respondent requests that the Tribunal dismiss the applicant’s Application in its entirety.

7By email dated March 6, 2026, the Tribunal wrote to the parties and advised that the written hearing was scheduled on February 27, 2026, and the applicant’s written submissions were not received by the Tribunal. It asked the parties whether they had reached a resolution and if yes to notify the Tribunal and submit a Notice of Withdrawal. No response was received to this email.

8I find that as the applicant did not file a Notice of Withdrawal with the Tribunal, the file was not closed. I will therefore proceed with the hearing pursuant to s. 7(2) of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act. I find that the parties had notice of the written hearing by way of email on September 4, 2025.

9The applicant has the onus of demonstrating entitlement to the treatment plans in dispute, an award and interest. As no submissions or evidence have been filed with the Tribunal by the applicant, I find that the applicant has not met her burden of demonstrating entitlement to the treatment plans in dispute, an award or interest.

ORDER

10For the reasons outlined above, I find that the applicant is not entitled to the treatment plans in dispute, an award or interest. The application is dismissed.