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.
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.
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.
Hou v. Aviva General Insurance Company
2026 ONLAT 25-000946/AABS – AB
Congratulations to Aylina Dhanji, Counsel, on successfully winning the in-person hearing.
All disputed issues were decided in favour of the applicant, and the Tribunal awarded an additional 25% Special Award on the total benefits payable.
The Tribunal ordered Aviva to pay the applicant: Income Replacement Benefits (IRB) commencing November 23, 2023; $45.62 per week for the first 104 weeks following the accident; $185.00 per week after 104 weeks, ongoing; Statutory interest on all overdue benefits; An additional 25% Special Award for unreasonable conduct by the insurer. The Adjudicator expressly found that the insurer engaged in unreasonable use of section 33 information requests and failed to properly and timely adjust the claim, constituting improper conduct.
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.
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.
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.
Xu vs. Belair Insurance Company, 2023 ONLAT 21-0055966AABS
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.
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.
Weng v. Co-operators Insurance
2025 ONLAT 23-014596/AABS Sareena Samra, Counsel
The Tribunal accepted the client’s psychological injuries and ordered removal from the MIG, approving multiple treatment plans and medication expenses.
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.
Zhang vs Allstate- FSCO A16-000631
Yeung & Associates successfully represented the client in a lawsuit against Allstate Insurance Company, securing full compensation for lost wages, inclusive of interest and additional penalties.
Past results are not necessarily indicative of future results. Outcomes vary according to the facts of individual cases.
Jin vs. Certas Home and Auto Insurance Company, 2023 ONLAT 20-011392/AABS
Another Yeung & Associates success case in 2023
Past results are not necessarily indicative of future results. Outcomes vary according to the facts of individual cases.
Shirazi vs. The Co-operators General Insurance Company, 2023 ONLAT 20-005725/AABS
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.
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.
Wu vs. Allstate Canada – LAT 20-010616/AABS
Another Yeung & Associates success case in 2023
Past results are not necessarily indicative of future results. Outcomes vary according to the facts of individual cases.
Liu vs. Certas Direct Insurance Company, 2023 ONLAT 20-012975/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.
Lo vs. TD General Insurance Company, 2024 ONLAT 22-002917/AABS
Congratulations to one of our newest lawyers, Aylina Dhanji, on her first victory at the License Appeal Tribunal (LAT), case number 2024 ONLAT 22-002917/AABS.
Past results are not necessarily indicative of future results. Outcomes vary according to the facts of individual cases.
Wen vs. Co-operators – LAT 6-003821
A decision brought the case out of MIG.
Past results are not necessarily indicative of future results. Outcomes vary according to the facts of individual cases.
Ni vs. Aviva Insurance Company of Canada – LAT 20-008774/AABS
Annual case of YA Law: we secured full benefits in dispute, plus interest, and additionally a special award was obtained as 50% of the entire compensation. It was a case mentioned at the 6th Motor Vehicle Litigation Summit held by Law Society of Ontario.
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.
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.
Yu vs Aviva – LAT 17-006004
Past results are not necessarily indicative of future results. Outcomes vary according to the facts of individual cases.
Liu vs TD Insurance – LAT 20-009761/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.
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.
Wu vs. Aviva General Insurance Company, 2023 ONLAT 21-002851/AABS
Yeung & Associates successfully secured compensation for the client for his Non-Earner Benefit. In addition to obtaining the full amount and accrued interest, a 10% special award was granted.
Past results are not necessarily indicative of future results. Outcomes vary according to the facts of individual cases.
Sun vs TD – LAT 18-003084/AABS
TD Insurance Company attempted to deny the future attendant care benefit of our client, but their efforts were unsuccessful. Ultimately, Yeung & Associates successfully secured our client’s future access to such benefit.
Past results are not necessarily indicative of future results. Outcomes vary according to the facts of individual cases.
REN VS JEVCO FSCO A14-005158
In the case of Ren vs. JEVCO (FSCO A14-005158), JEVCO Insurance Company persisted in denying the accident and subsequently rejected all available benefits, despite the provision of a detailed police report, as well as the admission of occurrence by the other driver. Yeung & Associates won the lawsuit, and not only recovering all compensation for the client, but also securing additional payment from the insurance company for litigation costs.
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.
Zheng vs Aviva – LAT 16-000517/AABS
Following Aviva’s loss at the License Appeal Tribunal (LAT) against Yeung & Associates, Aviva appealed to the Divisional Court. However, Aviva ultimately lost the case and was ordered to cover cost of Yeung & Associates. This case was ranked among the Top 10 Personal Injury cases in 2018 and Top 1 case of 2019 by Ontario Trial Lawyers Association (OTLA).
Past results are not necessarily indicative of future results. Outcomes vary according to the facts of individual cases.
Ni vs. TD – FSCO A13-013501
Past results are not necessarily indicative of future results. Outcomes vary according to the facts of individual cases.
Chang vs. State Farm – FSCO A11-001155
State Farm Insurance Company refused to pay for the attendant care benefit of a Yeung & Associates client, but Yeung & Associates won the lawsuit.
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.
Sun vs. Aviva – LAT 18-005357
A decision sought in favor of Yeung & Associates’ client, against Aviva Insurance Company once more, due to the non-compliance with regulatory procedures.
Past results are not necessarily indicative of future results. Outcomes vary according to the facts of individual cases.
Trinh vs Certas- LAT 16-000874/AABS Tran vs Certas – LAT 16-000872/AABS
Following LAT’s assumption of the traffic accident benefits compensation litigation, the plaintiffs attained a resounding victory, successfully securing all previously denied compensations for both appellant clients.
Past results are not necessarily indicative of future results. Outcomes vary according to the facts of individual cases.
Lin and Liu vs. ING Insurance – FSCO A06-001732, FSCO A06-1689
Yeung & Associates successfully defended our client against ING Insurance’s attempt to classify a motor vehicle accident as a workplace injury claim. The arbitrator ruled in favour of our clients, which ensured that our client received fair compensation and benefits.
Past results are not necessarily indicative of future results. Outcomes vary according to the facts of individual cases.
Li vs. Security National Insurance Company, 2025 ONLAT 23-004157/AABSI
Past results are not necessarily indicative of future results. Outcomes vary according to the facts of individual cases.