Success Litigation Cases

Security National Insurance Company v. Weng, 2026 ONLAT 25-005191/AABS

Classic LAT Arbitration Case: Yeung and Associates Lawyer Aylina Dhanji Successfully Defeats Insurer’s $12,100 Repayment Claim

In Security National Insurance Company v. Weng, 2026 ONLAT 25-005191/AABS, the insurer sought repayment of income replacement benefits, known as IRBs, in the amount of $12,100.
The insurer alleged that the client had issues relating to income and employment status while receiving IRBs.
The client was represented by Aylina Dhanji, lawyer at Yeung and Associates Professional Law Firm.
The key issue was whether the insurer could prove wilful misrepresentation.
The LAT reviewed tax records, medical records, surveillance evidence, and the client’s testimony given during the examination under oath and at the hearing.
The Tribunal ultimately found that while the insurer’s evidence raised some questions, it was not enough to prove that the client had intentionally concealed work activity or deliberately made false statements while receiving IRBs.
In other words:
Suspicion is not proof.
Questions in the evidence do not automatically meet the legal burden of proof.
The LAT ultimately ruled that the insurer was not entitled to recover the $12,100 in IRBs.
The insurer was also not entitled to interest or costs.
The decision was released on July 21, 2026.

Past results are not necessarily indicative of future results. Outcomes vary according to the facts of individual cases.

Kuo v. Security National Insurance Company, 2026 ONLAT 24-007413/AABS

Classic LAT Arbitration Case: Yeung and Associates Lawyer Rakesh Sharma Successfully Challenges Insurer’s “Boilerplate” Denial
In Kuo v. Security National Insurance Company, 2026 ONLAT 24-007413/AABS, the insurer refused to fund an occupational therapy treatment plan (OCF-18) valued at approximately $14,684.10.

The insurer denied the plan on the basis that there was “no medical evidence” showing the proposed items were necessary.

The applicant was represented by Rakesh Sharma, lawyer at Yeung and Associates Professional Law Firm.

The Tribunal found that the insurer’s denial reasons were overly general and did not sufficiently address the applicant’s medical history, psychological condition, and functional limitations.

The insurer’s use of boilerplate language such as “no medical evidence” and “not necessary” did not meet the notice requirements under Ontario’s Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule (SABS).

The LAT ultimately found that the insurer’s denial notice was non-compliant.

The applicant was therefore entitled to the disputed occupational therapy treatment plan. The insurer was also required to pay interest on eligible expenses incurred before the hearing.

The decision was released on February 25, 2026.

Past results are not necessarily indicative of future results. Outcomes vary according to the facts of individual cases.

Aviva Insurance Company of Canada v. Lin, 2026 ONLAT 25-002242/AABS

Classic Arbitration Case: Lawyer Ryan Olson Successfully Defeats Insurance Company’s Unjust Repayment Demand.

In a dispute heard by the Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) of Ontario, Aviva Insurance Company strongly demanded that the client fully repay $26,617.14 CAD in Income Replacement Benefits (IRBs) previously issued, citing an earlier error in filling out the application forms.

Lawyer Ryan Olson of Yeung and Associates Professional Law Firm legally represented the client in mounting a defense. Focusing closely on the legislative intent of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule (SABS) as consumer protection legislation, he powerfully argued that the client’s early clerical error should not serve as an excuse for the insurer to seek repayment.

The Tribunal ultimately adopted Ryan Olson’s defense arguments in full. According to the official decision issued on June 22, 2026 (25-002242. Decision. June 22, 2026.pdf), the adjudicator formally ruled that Aviva Insurance Company is not entitled to any repayment and legally dismissed the insurer’s application.

We always adhere to utilizing solid professional capabilities to safeguard our clients’ rightful legal interests at critical moments.

Past results are not necessarily indicative of future results. Outcomes vary according to the facts of individual cases.

Qu v. Co-operators General Insurance Company, 20261.

The applicant, Jimei Qu, sustained injuries in an automobile accident on June 19, 2023. Although the Adjudicator found that the applicant’s injuries remained subject to the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and its 3,500 funding limit, Yeung and Associates Professional Law Firm successfully secured compensation by identifying the insurer’s procedural failures. 2. Key SuccessesSecuring Non-Earner Benefits (NEB):The completed Disability Certificate (OCF-3) was submitted to the insurer on August 15, 2023. The insurer failed to provide a denial notice within 10 business days of the application, violating Section 36 of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule (SABS). Result: The Tribunal ordered the insurer to pay an NEB of 185 per week from August 23, 2023, to October 18, 2023. Full Payment for Psychological Assessment:The applicant submitted a treatment plan for a psychological assessment valued at 2,144.93. The insurer’s denial letter dated February 15, 2024, was found to be “confusing” and not a “clear and unequivocal denial”. The Tribunal ruled that this failure triggered the consequences of s. 38(11) of the Schedule. Result: The insurer was ordered to pay the 2,144.93 for the psychological assessment.

Past results are not necessarily indicative of future results. Outcomes vary according to the facts of individual cases.

Lin v. Intact Insurance
2025 ONLAT 25-004901/AABS – PI

Sareena Samra, Counsel

The Tribunal ruled that the applicant gave valid notice under s.32(1).The insurer failed to send the required accident-benefits package.The applicant is allowed to proceed with his claim.

Past results are not necessarily indicative of future results. Outcomes vary according to the facts of individual cases.

Li v. Co-operators Insurance
2025 ONLAT 24-002102/AABS
Ryan Olson, Paralegal

The Tribunal approved a new psychological treatment plan after determining the client continued to suffer accident-related psychological impairments.

Past results are not necessarily indicative of future results. Outcomes vary according to the facts of individual cases.

Zhe Ning Dong v. T Professional corporation, CV-23-00701463-0000

It is a case with respect to previous lawyer’s account at assessment court. The opponent was not only ordered with $0 for their account and disbursement, but also was required to pay our client for the legal cost of this proceeding.

Past results are not necessarily indicative of future results. Outcomes vary according to the facts of individual cases.

Liu v. Aviva Insurance Company of Canada, 2026 ONLAT 25-001294/AABS

Aylina Dhanji, Counsel, of our firm successfully represented a client injured in a motor vehicle accident in August 2022 in a dispute against Aviva Insurance Company of Canada concerning Income Replacement Benefits (IRBs) before the Licence Appeal Tribunal of Ontario.
The Tribunal determined that:

The applicant was entitled to IRBs of $287.88 per week;

The entitlement period ran from August 31, 2022 to September 21, 2023;

Interest was payable on all overdue benefits.

The Adjudicator accepted that the client sustained accident-related psychological impairments which resulted in a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of pre-accident employment, satisfying the statutory test under the Schedule. This decision reflects the firm’s experience in accident benefits arbitration and complex psychological impairment claims.

Past results are not necessarily indicative of future results. Outcomes vary according to the facts of individual cases.

Pettemerides vs. Security National Insurance Company – LAT 24-000673/AABS-PI

Yeung & Associates success case in 2024

Past results are not necessarily indicative of future results. Outcomes vary according to the facts of individual cases.

Emam v. Economical Insurance, 2024 ONLAT 22-010341/AABS

Yeung & Associates success case in 2024

Past results are not necessarily indicative of future results. Outcomes vary according to the facts of individual cases.

Yip v. Aviva Insurance
2025 ONLAT 23-014702/AABS

Aylina Dhanji,Counsel

The Tribunal ordered Aviva to pay the unapproved $1,495.92 from the February 1, 2024 psychological treatment plan due to a non-compliant denial letter.
All other disputed treatment plans and fees were not payable.

Past results are not necessarily indicative of future results. Outcomes vary according to the facts of individual cases.

Zou vs. TD – LAT 16-002126/AABS

TD Insurance Company refused to cover any of the client’s medical treatments. However, Yeung & Associates successfully litigated the case, securing approval for all necessary treatments to proceed for the client.

Past results are not necessarily indicative of future results. Outcomes vary according to the facts of individual cases.

Liu v. Aviva Insurance
2025 ONLAT 23-013859/AABS
Sareena Samra, Counsel

Although many physical treatments were denied, the Tribunal approved several psychological treatment plans and interest due, recognizing ongoing psychological impairment.

Past results are not necessarily indicative of future results. Outcomes vary according to the facts of individual cases.

Jevco vs. Wu – DC-22-2728

In the case of Jevco insurance Company V. Yu Hang, 2022 ONSC 4961 (CANLii), the distinctiveness lies in the deliberate obstruction by the opposing party during the claims process, aimed at stalling progress. They even pursued judicial review at the Ontario Superior Court. Yeung & Associates swiftly responded within a constrained time frame, successfully defending the case and ultimately achieving a favorable outcome. This case generated significant industry discussions following the judgment. It was prominently mentioned at the 5th Motor Vehicle Litigation Summit held by Law Society of Ontario, where it underwent thorough analysis and discussion. This success further established Yeung & Associate’s standing in the field of accident claims, building upon their previous victory against AVIVA in 2018.

Past results are not necessarily indicative of future results. Outcomes vary according to the facts of individual cases.

Liu vs. Co-operators – LAT 17-006816

Yeung & Associates’ client prevailed in the pre-litigation dispute against Co-operators Insurance Company.

Past results are not necessarily indicative of future results. Outcomes vary according to the facts of individual cases.

Lyu v. Aviva Insurance
2025 ONLAT 23-013029/AABS
Sareena Samra, Counsel

The Tribunal accepted the psychological evidence, removed the client from the MIG, and approved a psychiatric assessment plan.

Past results are not necessarily indicative of future results. Outcomes vary according to the facts of individual cases.

He v. Aviva Insurance Company – LAT 19-010082/AABS

Yeung & Associates success case in 2023

Past results are not necessarily indicative of future results. Outcomes vary according to the facts of individual cases.

Chai v. Northbridge Insurance
2025 ONLAT 23-012286/AABS
Aylina Dhanji, Counsel

The Tribunal found the physiotherapy plan reasonable and necessary, ordering the insurer to fund the $1,249.24 treatment plan with interest.

Past results are not necessarily indicative of future results. Outcomes vary according to the facts of individual cases.

Yang vs Dominion (Travelers) LAT 20-008471/AABS

Past results are not necessarily indicative of future results. Outcomes vary according to the facts of individual cases.

Zhao vs. The Personal Insurance Company, 2023 ONLAT 20-013013/AABS

The insurance company hastily categorized the client’s injuries as minor, neglecting a comprehensive examination. Yeung & Associates effectively challenged and reversed this assessment, resulting in a significant shift in the case’s dynamics.

Past results are not necessarily indicative of future results. Outcomes vary according to the facts of individual cases.