Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number: 25-000273/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:
Md Kutub Uddin
Applicant
and
Allstate Insurance Company of Canada
Respondent
DECISION
ADJUDICATOR:
Matthew Frontini
APPEARANCES:
For the Applicant:
Christine Kako, Paralegal
For the Respondent:
Karina Dziuba, Counsel
HEARD:
By way of written submissions
OVERVIEW
1Md Kutub Uddin, the applicant, was involved in an automobile accident on August 24, 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, Allstate Insurance Company of Canada, and applied to the Licence Appeal Tribunal - Automobile Accident Benefits Service (the “Tribunal”) for resolution of the dispute.
ISSUE
2The issues in dispute are:
i. 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 (“MIG”) limit?
ii. Is the applicant entitled to $2,901.26 for Chiropractic Services, proposed by E Clinic United Healing in a treatment plan/OCF-18 (“plan”) dated October 16, 2023?
iii. Is the applicant entitled to $1,920.53 for Psychological Services, proposed by E Clinic United Healing in a plan dated October 30, 2023?
iv. Is the applicant entitled to $3,383.56 for Chiropractic Services, proposed by Safe Space Rehabilitation Centre in a plan dated August 26, 2024?
v. Is the applicant entitled to $2,932.36 for Chiropractic Services, proposed by Safe Space Rehabilitation Centre in a plan dated December 23, 2024?
vi. Is the respondent liable to pay an award under s. 10 of Reg. 664 because it unreasonably withheld or delayed payments to the applicant?
vii. Is the applicant entitled to interest on any overdue payment of benefits?
RESULT
3I find that:
i. The applicant’s injuries are predominantly minor as defined in s. 3 of the Schedule and therefore subject to treatment within the $3,500.00 Minor Injury Guideline limit;
ii. As the applicant is in the MIG, it is not necessary to consider if the disputed treatment plans are reasonable and necessary;
iii. The respondent is not liable to pay an award under s. 10 of Reg. 664; and
iv. The applicant is not entitled to interest on any overdue payment of benefits.
4The application is dismissed.
PROCEDURAL ISSUE
Respondent’s motion to exclude evidence and submissions
5The respondent brought a motion to exclude the clinical notes and records of the applicant’s family physician, Dr. Noorullah Tarun, covering the period of September 11, 2023, to July 1, 2025 (the “disputed records”). The basis of the respondent’s motion is that these records were not disclosed in accordance with the case conference report and order in this application (“CCRO”) and in breach of Rule 9 of the Licence Appeal Tribunal Rules, 2023 (the “Rules”).
6The CCRO sets out three deadlines for the parties to exchange different categories of documents. Of relevance to the respondent’s motion, the deadline for the parties to exchange all documents they intended to rely on in this hearing was July 8, 2025. The applicant did not provide the disputed records until October 21, 2025, when he served and filed his hearing submissions and evidence. The applicant’s submissions do not advise the Tribunal or the respondent that they rely on evidence not previously made available to the respondent in accordance with the deadlines required by the CCRO and Rule 9.3.
7The CCRO and Rule 9.3 sets out the consequences for a party that does not comply with the timelines for the exchange of documents. Such documents may not be used as evidence in the hearing without the Tribunal’s permission. The CCRO and Rule 9.3 also provides that the admittance of evidence is at the hearing adjudicator’s discretion and Rule 9.3 provides a list of factors to be considered by the Tribunal in the exercise of that discretion. These factors include, among others, consideration of the reasons for non-compliance and whether a party will be prejudiced by the admission or exclusion of the evidence.
8The respondent’s motion essentially requests the Tribunal to maintain Rule 9.3’s status quo and not exercise its discretion to admit the disputed records into evidence. I also note that Rule 9.4.1 provides that, separate and apart from any timelines imposed by an order or specific Rule, the parties’ obligation to exchange relevant documents beings “as soon as the application is filed with the Tribunal” (emphasis added). If a party becomes aware of documents it intends to rely on that have not been previously disclosed, regardless of specific deadlines, there is an obligation to provide those documents to the other party.
9The applicant submits that the disputed records should be admitted and his failure to comply with the CCRO’s deadline was due to two distinct, and contradictory, reasons. The applicant submits that he “diligently” sought the disputed records and that a clerical and administrative oversight, the nature of which is not particularized, resulted in the failure to produce them to the respondent. Later in his submissions, the applicant claims that the late production due to circumstances beyond his control, again without describing the nature of those circumstances.
10The applicant further submits it would be unfair to exclude these records because they are central to meeting his burden in this application. The applicant submits that their exclusion would prevent him from proving his case and therefore fairness requires their admission.
11Contrary to the applicant’s submissions, on the evidence submitted I find that he did not diligently seek out these records. The applicant’s representative only requested the disputed records on July 11, 2025 – four days after the CCRO’s deadline required him to produce all documents he intended to rely on at the hearing. Even more concerning is that despite receiving the disputed records on July 18, 2025, the applicant did not provide them to the respondent until he served and filed his hearing submissions on October 21, 2025.
12I also do not find the applicant’s submission that the late production was caused by circumstances beyond his control to be credible. Beyond these bald statements, the applicant provides no detail to explain what circumstances prevented him from providing the disputed records before October 21, 2025. The applicant also does include not any admissible evidence regarding factual basis of the purported administrative oversight or circumstances he asserts were beyond his control.
13Contrary to the applicant’s submissions, the evidence before the Tribunal does not support that he was diligent in obtaining the documents or that there were circumstances beyond his control. Requesting these records after the CCRO’s production deadline, failing to produce them to the respondent immediately upon receipt, and not until three months later, are all circumstances entirely within the applicant’s control and do not reflect diligence.
14The most troubling aspect of the applicant’s responding submissions opposing the respondent’s motion is their lack of candour with the Tribunal regarding this issue. These submissions were prepared by the applicant’s representative, a law firm specializing in all aspects of personal injury, who also attended the case conference and was provided with the CCRO.
15As previously noted, the applicant’s hearing submissions did not advise the Tribunal that they rely on documents that were not produced in compliance with the CCRO and Rules and therefore required permission to be admitted as evidence pursuant to Rule 9.3. This should have been done upon receipt of the disputed documents, pursuant to Rules 9.1 and 9.4.1. At the very least, it should have been clear to the applicant that the disputed documents had not been produced to the respondent when he was preparing his submissions and accompanying evidence for this hearing. It was only in response the respondent’s motion, essentially identifying the non-compliant records and requesting the Tribunal to not use its discretion to admit them, that the applicant engaged with this issue at all. And as discussed, the applicant’s submissions are not supported by evidence and are difficult to accept at face value.
15Having addressed the applicant’s reasons for non-compliance, I now turn to prejudice. The applicant argues that the respondent would not be prejudiced by the inclusion of medical records spanning 21-months, characterizing them as “updates” to the applicant’s medical condition. On the other hand, the applicant argues that he would be immensely prejudiced by the exclusion of the disputed documents because, in his submission, he would be unable to prove his case.
16While not commenting on the applicant’s subjective view of the importance of the disputed documents, these submissions are contradictory. By the applicant’s own admission, he requires these documents to meet his burden in this proceeding and prove his entitlement to the disputed benefits. As such, it was not until October 21, 2025, that the respondent was even aware that these medical documents, which are central to applicant’s case, existed. If, as applicant submits, they contain such key evidence, they are not merely “updates” to his medical condition.
17Accepting the applicant’s submissions regarding the importance of the documents, I agree that it would be prejudicial to exclude them. However, it would also be highly prejudicial to the respondent to include these documents, which it and its assessors have never seen. Considering the circumstances, it would be unfair to include the disputed documents and have the respondent be prejudiced as a result of the applicant’s noncompliance with the Rules and CCRO. Any prejudice the applicant might suffer is self-inflicted.
18Considering the evidence and submissions on this motion, I decline to exercise my discretion to admit the disputed records into evidence. I will also not consider those paragraphs of the applicant’s submissions that refer to the disputed records.
ANALYSIS
The applicant is not removed from the MIG
19The applicant is not removed from the MIG. He has not established on a balance of probabilities that he has suffered more than a minor injury because of the accident.
20Section 18(1) of the Schedule provides that medical and rehabilitation benefits are limited to $3,500.00 if the insured sustains impairments that are predominantly a minor injury. Section 3(1) defines a “minor injury” as “one or more of a sprain, strain, whiplash associated disorder, contusion, abrasion, laceration or subluxation and includes any clinically associated sequelae to such an injury.”
21An insured may be removed from the MIG if they can establish that their accident-related injuries fall outside of the MIG or, under s. 18(2), that they have a documented pre-existing condition combined with compelling medical evidence stating that the condition precludes recovery if they are kept within the confines of the MIG. The Tribunal has also determined that chronic pain with functional impairment or a psychological condition may warrant removal from the MIG. In all cases, the burden of proof lies with the applicant.
22The applicant claims that he is entitled be removed from the MIG because he suffers from chronic pain syndrome and a psychological impairment as a result of the accident.
The applicant has not established that he suffers chronic pain warranting removal from the MIG
23I find that the applicant has not established on a balance of probabilities that he suffers chronic pain with a functional impairment or chronic pain syndrome warranting removal from the MIG.
24The applicant submits that clinical notes and records of Dr. Tarun (those records predating September 11, 2023, being properly in evidence), Scarborough Grace Hospital and Scarborough Injury Rehab Centre, establish that he suffers chronic pain syndrome. The applicant does not identify any specific evidence in the record that supports his assertion of chronic pain syndrome.
25The applicant’s submissions go on to provide a chronological summary of some of Dr. Tarun’s clinical notes spanning June 2020 to June 2025. In accordance with my ruling in respect of the disputed records, I have not considered any of the applicant’s submissions that refer to records after September 11, 2023. The last admissible record reporting pain to Dr. Tarun is dated December 22, 2022 – four months after the accident.
26The applicant’s submissions in respect of the admissible evidence can be summarized as pre- and post-accident records of complaints of pain in his elbows, groin, neck, shoulders, back and knees. The applicant’s submissions do not refer to any functional impairments resulting from the reported pain. Dr. Tarun also did not diagnose the applicant with chronic pain syndrome, although there is one reference to chronic back pain.
27However, persistent complaints of pain over an extended period are insufficient to warrant removal from the MIG. Experiencing pain over a significant length of time is not the only criteria required. Medical evidence regarding impaired function is also necessary, which the applicant has not identified in his submissions. In this case, the applicant’s submissions do not reference any functional impairments, focusing instead on existence of reports of pain over an extended period to establish that he should be removed from the MIG.
28I find that the applicant has not established on a balance of probabilities that he suffers from chronic pain with a functional impairment or chronic pain syndrome warranting removal from the MIG. The admissible supporting evidence establishes that the applicant reported pain to his family doctor for four months after the accident. It does not establish that the applicant suffered any functional impairments as a result of this pain or that he was diagnosed with Chronic Pain Syndrome.
The applicant has not established that he suffers psychological impairment warranting removal from the MIG
29I find that the applicant has not established on a balance of probabilities that he suffers a psychological impairment warranting removal from the MIG.
30The applicant’s submissions simply state that “[a]dditionally, the accident has given rise to a psychological impairment that is not included within the limits of the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).” While the applicant does not identify any specific psychological impairment, he later asserts that he experiences anxiety and a general fear of driving. These submissions do not refer to any specific objective contemporaneous medical evidence in respect of the asserted impairments.
31In the absence of supporting medical evidence, I find that the applicant has not met his onus to establish on a balance of probabilities that he suffers a psychological impairment warranting removal from the MIG.
32As the applicant is in the MIG, it is not necessary for me to consider if the treatment plans in dispute are reasonable and necessary.
Interest
33Interest applies on the payment of any overdue benefits pursuant to s. 51 of the Schedule. As the applicant is not entitled to the disputed treatment plans, no payments are overdue, and interest does not apply.
Award
34The 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.
35As the respondent did not withhold or delay any payment of benefits, I find that the applicant has not established that he is entitled to an award.
ORDER
36I find that:
i. The applicant’s injuries are predominantly minor as defined in s. 3 of the Schedule and therefore subject to treatment within the $3,500.00 Minor Injury Guideline limit.
ii. As the applicant is in the MIG, it is not necessary to consider if the disputed treatment plans are reasonable and necessary.
iii. The respondent is not liable to pay an award under s. 10 of Reg. 664; and
iv. The applicant is not entitled to interest on any overdue payment of benefits.
37The application is dismissed.
Released: June 12, 2026
Matthew Frontini
Adjudicator