BACK TO CASES

Selvaratnam v Definity Insurance Company, 2026 CanLII 6215 (ON LAT)

Share This

Case Summary

In Selvaratnam v. Definity Insurance Company, the LAT considered whether the Applicant's injuries fell outside the MIG, whether he was entitled to funding for a disputed physiotherapy treatment plan, and whether he was entitled to interest on overdue benefits. The Tribunal found that the Applicant failed to prove a pre-existing condition or chronic pain impairment that would remove him from the MIG, and therefore denied the treatment plan and interest, dismissing the application.

read the full decision here https://canlii.ca/t/khwcs

The Applicant claimed entitlement to physiotherapy costs beyond the $3,500 Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) limit, arguing that pre-existing conditions and chronic pain removed him from the MIG.

The Tribunal found that the Applicant did not meet his burden to show that his injuries fell outside the MIG. While the Applicant had documented pre-existing conditions (including diabetes, osteoarthritis, hypertension, and pericardial effusion), there was no compelling medical evidence showing these conditions would prevent maximal recovery if treatment were limited to the MIG, as required by s. 18(2) of the SABS.

The Tribunal also rejected the claim of chronic pain with functional impairment, finding that the medical evidence showed improvement over time, inconsistent symptom reporting, and no diagnosis of chronic pain. A causation issue arose regarding the Applicant’s left shoulder injury.

The Tribunal found the medical evidence and inconsistent reporting supported the conclusion that the rotator cuff tear sustained by the Applicant was more likely caused by lifting a heavy suitcase rather than the motor vehicle accident, and therefore was not accident-related.

The Tribunal found the Applicant was not entitled to the disputed physiotherapy treatment plan and further held that the insurer’s denial of the treatment plan complied with s. 38 of the SABS. The Applicant was not entitled to interest and the Application was dismissed.

Copyright © 2023 Schultz Law Group LLP. All Rights Reserved.     Terms of Use