Huang v. Aviva Insurance Company of Canada, 2026 CanLII 45602

Citation: Huang v. Aviva Insurance Company of Canada, 2026 ONLAT 25-000339/AABS

Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number: 25-000339/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:

Jing Quan Huang

Applicant

and

Aviva Insurance Company of Canada

Respondent

DECISION

ADJUDICATOR: Jeff Chatterton

APPEARANCES:

For the Applicant: Ryan Olson, Paralegal

For the Respondent: Jessica Telfer, Counsel

HEARD: In Writing May 8, 2026

OVERVIEW

1Jing Quan Huang, the applicant, was involved in an automobile accident on September 2, 2021, 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:

1. Is the applicant entitled to $4,383.90 for chiropractic services, proposed by Total Recovery Rehab Centre in a treatment plan/OCF-18 ("treatment plan") submitted January 24, 2024, denied January 31, 2024?
2. Is the respondent liable to pay an award under s. 10 of Reg. 664 because it unreasonably withheld or delayed payments to the applicant?
3. Is the applicant entitled to interest on any overdue payment of benefits?

RESULT

3The applicant is not entitled to the treatment plan for chiropractic services.

4Neither interest nor an award are payable.

5The application is dismissed.

ANALYSIS

Is the applicant entitled to chiropractic services?

6The applicant has not met his onus to establish that he is entitled to chiropractic services.

7To receive payment for a treatment and assessment 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 the goals of treatment, how the goals would be met to a reasonable degree and that the overall costs of achieving them are reasonable.

8In dispute is an OCF-18 filed by Chiropractor Dr. Georgia Palantzas, calling for 16 sessions of chiropractic treatment in an effort to reduce pain, increase strength and range of motion, with a stated goal of a return to the activities of normal living.

9The applicant argues that he has been diagnosed with chronic pain and receives pain relief from chiropractic services. To support his claim, the applicant relies upon the Clinical Notes and Records (CNRs) from his family physician, Dr. Tat Wong and Psychiatrist Dr. Kenneth Fung; and the OCF-18 filed by Chiropractor Dr. Georgia Palantzas, who indicated that the applicant's pain causes problems sitting, standing and lifting.

10The respondent disagrees that chiropractic treatment is reasonable or necessary, and relies upon a s.44 Insurers Examination report conducted by GP Dr. Greg Gelman, who opined that the applicant had received maximal medical recovery, and that any further facility-based treatment would not provide benefit.

11I do note that Dr. Palantzas claims the applicant is in pain. However, I am not convinced by the applicant's evidence.

12I place more weight on the CNRs from the family doctor. I say this because the notes provide a contemporaneous reporting of the applicant's medical condition that is based on a long term treating relationship. Having reviewed the CNR's from family physician Dr. Wong, I see that the applicant visited multiple times in the year prior to the date of the OCF-18 in question, but not for physical concerns related to the accident. The notes also do not indicate any complaints regarding pain, with one exception: the applicant did visit Dr. Wong on January 5, 2024, where he asked for a "note to indicate chronic pain for lawyer." This visit came just prior to the OCF-18 in dispute, which was dated January 24, 2024.

13The applicant did not lead me to evidence which indicates that Dr. Wong recommended chiropractic treatments (or physical treatments of any type) to treat accident-related chronic pain. Neither was I led to corroborating evidence from any qualified and objective medical professional which indicates the recommended chiropractic treatments are reasonable and necessary.

14While I can accept that the applicant may have lingering psychological or physical concerns which may be related to the accident, the applicant has the burden of demonstrating that the treatment plan in question is reasonable and necessary. While pain relief is a legitimate goal for treatment, in this case I find there is an absence of corroborating, contemporaneous medical evidence to support the treatment plan as reasonable and necessary for that purpose.

15In the absence of such corroborating evidence for chiropractic treatments, I find the applicant has not, on the balance of probabilities, met his onus to prove entitlement to the chiropractic treatment in dispute.

Interest

16Interest applies on the payment of any overdue benefits pursuant to s. 51 of the Schedule. As no benefits are overdue, no interest is payable.

Award

17The applicant sought an award under s. 10 of Reg. 664. Under s. 10, the Tribunal may grant an award of up to 50 per cent of the total benefits payable if it finds that an insurer unreasonably withheld or delayed the payment of benefits. As I have ruled that the respondent has not unreasonably withheld or delayed the payment of benefits, I find that no award is payable.

ORDER

18The application is dismissed.

i. The applicant is not entitled to the treatment plan for chiropractic treatments.

ii. Neither interest nor an award are payable.

Released: May 11, 2026

__________________________

Jeff Chatterton

Adjudicator