Court File and Parties

CITATION: Hasan v. Allstate Insurance Co., 2025 ONSC 1562

DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 090/24

DATE: 20250310

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

DIVISIONAL COURT

D.L. Corbett, Lococo, and Doyle JJ.

BETWEEN:

MEHRAB HASAN

Mr Hasan (Self-Represented), Zahangir Kabir permitted to assist

Appellant

• and -

ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY

Shelby Chung, for Allstate

Respondent

HEARD at Toronto by ZOOM: March 6, 2025

Endorsement

THE COURT:

[1] Mr Hasan and his father, Mr Kabir, appeared together by ZOOM for this hearing. They asked that Mr Kabir be permitted to speak on behalf of Mr Hasan; we accepted that request. The hearing proceeded with the assistance of a Bengali interpreter. We note that prior decisions of the LAT and of this court refer to the Appellant as “Hasan Meherab”. The Appellant confirmed at the start of the hearing that his name is “Mehrab Hasan” and his surname is “Hasan”.

[2] Mr Hasan was injured in a vehicle collision on November 20, 2020, and sought benefits from Allstate Insurance Company (Allstate). He settled his claims against Allstate for $13,000 and provided a full and final release of his claims in exchange for payment on July 30, 2022.

[3] Mr Hasan alleges that he subsequently developed post-traumatic stress disorder caused by the collision. He sought benefits from Allstate in connection with this claim. Allstate denied the claim, relying upon the settlement agreement and release.

[4] Mr Hasan pursued his claim before the License Appeal Tribunal (the “LAT”), which denied his claim on November 6, 2023, on the basis of the settlement agreement and release [2024 877 (ON LAT)]. The LAT noted that pursuant to s.9.1(8) of Regulation 664 (Automobile Insurance), R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 664 (the “Regulation”), Mr Hasan may be able to pursue his claims, but only if he returns the settlement funds to Allstate, which he has not done. By reconsideration decision dated November 21, 2023, the LAT confirmed this decision [2024 103815 (ON LAT)]).

[5] Section 9.1 of the Regulation provides:

(1) … “settlement” means an agreement between an insurer and an insured person that finally disposes of a claim or dispute in respect of the insured person’s entitlement to one or mor benefits under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

(8) No person may apply to the License Appeal Tribunal under subsection 280(2) of this Act with respect to benefits that were the subject of a settlement or a purported settlement unless the person has returned the money received as consideration of the settlement.

[6] Mr Hasan argues that the Tribunal erred by refusing to consider the materials he filed before the Tribunal. With respect, there is no substance to this submission. Allstate complained that Mr Hasan’s materials were filed late, but the Tribunal declined to preclude those materials because of late filing on the ground that Allstate failed to move for that relief. The decision shows that the Tribunal did receive Mr Hasan’s materials and did consider them. Further and in any event, Mr Hasan’s materials do not assist Mr Hasan on the substantive basis of the Tribunal’s decision: pursuant to s. 9.1(8), he had to repay the settlement funds before he could apply to the LAT under s. 280(2).

[7] Before us, Mr Hasan argues that, since the settlement documents allocated a value of $0 for rehabilitation benefits, claims for such benefits were not settled. This argument cannot succeed: on its face, the settlement covers all claims Mr Hasan may have against Allstate arising out of the accident.

[8] Mr Hasan argues before us that he cannot afford to repay the settlement funds. This argument was not made below and may not be pursued before us for that reason: see Perez (Litigation Guardian of) v. Salvation Army (1998), 1998 7197 (ON CA), 42 O.R. (3d) 229, at p. 233 (C.A.); Kaiman v. Graham, 2009 ONCA 77, 245 O.A.C. 130, at para. 18. Subsection 9.1(8) of the Regulation is mandatory and does not contain an exemption from the repayment requirement based upon impecuniosity. There is no factual foundation in the Record to ground an argument for relief from the mandatory repayment requirement.

[9] Mr Hasan asked that the court show compassion for Mr Hasan’s situation: he was injured while in Canada, and he believes that his treatment costs should be funded by Canadian sources. This is not a tenable argument in this proceeding. Mr Hasan’s claim is against Allstate. He settled all of his claims with Allstate. If he wishes to resile from that settlement and pursue a claim, he must repay the settlement funds first, pursuant to s. 9.1(8) of the Regulation.

[10] The appeal is dismissed.

[11] Allstate limits its claim for costs to $1,000, even though its partial indemnity costs are substantially more. This is a reasonable position. The Appellant shall pay costs to Allstate fixed at $1,000, inclusive, payable within 30 days.

_______________________________ D.L. Corbett J

Lococo J.

Doyle J.

Released: March 10, 2025