Rajiv Kapoor is a Licensed Paralegal with the Law Society of Ontario. He has attended Nipissing University and Humber College for Paralegal Services.
Mr. Kapoor previously interned at a respected Personal Injury Litigation Firm in Vaughan and joined Goodman Elbassiouni LLP in May 2020. He has since devoted his practice to the Accident Benefit Field. As a strong legal advocate, he is passionate and committed to attaining positive results for his clients.
Mr. Kapoor has extensive experience in the Accident Benefit Mediation, Arbitration and Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) forums. Mr. Kapoor is well versed in assisting clients who have suffered serious injuries. Mr. Kapoor does not shy away from conflict. He has developed a strong reputation for pushing his client's files to Mediation, Pre-Arbitration, Arbitration and LAT Hearings in order to maximize their financial reward. He has assisted his clients with their cases before FSCO, LAT and Alternative Dispute Resolution forums and achieved positive results, most notably in the following cases:
16-001031 v Aviva Insurance Canada, 2017 CanLII 15837 (ON LAT)
Adjudicator: Jeanie Theoharis
Outcome: Mr. Kapoor was successful in litigating on behalf of the Applicant for entitlement of costs associated with the chiropractic services and assistive devices in dispute, as the nature of the Applicant’s post-accident impairments render the treatment plan reasonable and necessary.
16-001031 v. Aviva Insurance Canada, 2017 CanLII 43880 (ON LAT)
Adjudicator: Linda P. Lamoureux
Outcome: The Respondent’s request for a Reconsideration of a decision, in which the Tribunal determined that the Applicant was compliant with Rule 9.2 of the LAT Rules of Practice and Procedure with regards to filing his submissions, and that the disputed treatment plan for assistive devices was reasonable and necessary, was denied. Regardless of how the date of a “Hearing” is defined, the Applicant filed his submissions by the date ordered at case conference and was thus compliant of Rule 9.2. Further, the Tribunal, as trier of fact, “was entitled to weigh the parties’ evidence as it saw fit”, and reweighing the evidence is beyond the scope of a request for Reconsideration.
16-000766 v Meloche Monnex Financial Services Inc., 2016 CanLII 96162 (ON LAT)
Adjudicator: Nicole Treksler
Outcome: The Applicant is entitled to the TMJ Assessment.
Rationale: Mr. Kapoor was successful in litigating on behalf of the Applicant for entitlement of costs associated with the TMJ assessment in dispute, as the nature of the Applicant’s post-accident impairments render the treatment plan reasonable and necessary.
16-001243 v Aviva Insurance, 2016 CanLII 104569 (ON LAT)
Adjudicator: Joseph Nemet
Outcome: The Respondent is not entitled to costs, as the Applicant was not found to have acted “unreasonably, frivolously, vexatiously, or in bad faith” by withdrawing their application after case conference.
19-008488 v Aviva General Insurance Company, 2021 CanLII 28692 (ON LAT)
Adjudicator: Derek Grant
Outcome: Mr. Kapoor was successful in litigating on behalf of the Applicant for entitlement of costs associated with the physiotherapy services and chronic pain assessment and costs in the amount of $300.00, as the Respondent failed in its duty to adjust the claim in good faith.
Noor v Intact Insurance Company, 2022 CanLII 53732 (ON LAT)
Vice-Chair: Chloe Lester
Outcome: The Applicant was removed from the MIG and was found to be entitled to two treatment plans. The psychological assessment was rendered payable under s. 38 (11) due to the Respondents failure to issue notice within 10 business days pursuant to the Schedule.
Walters v Aviva General Insurance, 2023 CanLII 26931 (ON LAT)
Adjudicator: Christopher Evans
Outcome: Mr. Kapoor was successful in litigating on behalf of the Applicant for entitlement of costs associated with a chronic pain assessment, psychological assessment, and psychological services, with interest. The Applicant's injuries were deemed non-minor and was not limited to $3,500.00 in medical and rehabilitation benefits after the five-year limitation of the claim.
Hennin v Economical Mutual Insurance Company, 2023 CanLII 50593 (ON LAT)
Adjudicator: Rachel Levitsky
Outcome: Mr. Kapoor was successful in litigating on behalf of the Applicant for entitlement of costs associated with chiropractic treatment, psychological assessment, social work assessment, psychological treatment and an award pursuant to s. 10 of O. Reg. 664 in the amount of $1,000.00 plus interest.
Omar v Aviva General Insurance, 2023 CanLII 91420 (ON LAT)
Adjudicator: Talvin Kaur
Outcome: The Applicant may proceed before the Tribunal with his application because the insurer failed to comply with Section 44(5) of the Schedule. The notice requirements set out in Section 44(5) should be strictly construed and the notice should be closely examined to ensure it complies. If the insurer's notice does not comply with Section 44(5), an insurer cannot rely on the severe remedy available in Section 55 of the Schedule to bar an insured's application from proceeding before the Tribunal.
Anghel v. Intact Insurance Company, 2023 CanLII 98430 (ON LAT)
Adjudicator: Talvin Kaur
Outcome: The Applicant may proceed before the Tribunal with his application because the insurer failed to comply with Section 44(5) of the Schedule. It is trite law that boilerplate medical reasons for denials for treatment plans submitted under the Schedule constitute as no reasons at all. Reasons must be meaningful in order to permit the insured person to decide whether or not to challenge the insurer's determination.
Mr. Kapoor previously interned at a respected Personal Injury Litigation Firm in Vaughan and joined Goodman Elbassiouni LLP in May 2020. He has since devoted his practice to the Accident Benefit Field. As a strong legal advocate, he is passionate and committed to attaining positive results for his clients.
Mr. Kapoor has extensive experience in the Accident Benefit Mediation, Arbitration and Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) forums. Mr. Kapoor is well versed in assisting clients who have suffered serious injuries. Mr. Kapoor does not shy away from conflict. He has developed a strong reputation for pushing his client's files to Mediation, Pre-Arbitration, Arbitration and LAT Hearings in order to maximize their financial reward. He has assisted his clients with their cases before FSCO, LAT and Alternative Dispute Resolution forums and achieved positive results, most notably in the following cases:
16-001031 v Aviva Insurance Canada, 2017 CanLII 15837 (ON LAT)
Adjudicator: Jeanie Theoharis
Outcome: Mr. Kapoor was successful in litigating on behalf of the Applicant for entitlement of costs associated with the chiropractic services and assistive devices in dispute, as the nature of the Applicant’s post-accident impairments render the treatment plan reasonable and necessary.
16-001031 v. Aviva Insurance Canada, 2017 CanLII 43880 (ON LAT)
Adjudicator: Linda P. Lamoureux
Outcome: The Respondent’s request for a Reconsideration of a decision, in which the Tribunal determined that the Applicant was compliant with Rule 9.2 of the LAT Rules of Practice and Procedure with regards to filing his submissions, and that the disputed treatment plan for assistive devices was reasonable and necessary, was denied. Regardless of how the date of a “Hearing” is defined, the Applicant filed his submissions by the date ordered at case conference and was thus compliant of Rule 9.2. Further, the Tribunal, as trier of fact, “was entitled to weigh the parties’ evidence as it saw fit”, and reweighing the evidence is beyond the scope of a request for Reconsideration.
16-000766 v Meloche Monnex Financial Services Inc., 2016 CanLII 96162 (ON LAT)
Adjudicator: Nicole Treksler
Outcome: The Applicant is entitled to the TMJ Assessment.
Rationale: Mr. Kapoor was successful in litigating on behalf of the Applicant for entitlement of costs associated with the TMJ assessment in dispute, as the nature of the Applicant’s post-accident impairments render the treatment plan reasonable and necessary.
16-001243 v Aviva Insurance, 2016 CanLII 104569 (ON LAT)
Adjudicator: Joseph Nemet
Outcome: The Respondent is not entitled to costs, as the Applicant was not found to have acted “unreasonably, frivolously, vexatiously, or in bad faith” by withdrawing their application after case conference.
19-008488 v Aviva General Insurance Company, 2021 CanLII 28692 (ON LAT)
Adjudicator: Derek Grant
Outcome: Mr. Kapoor was successful in litigating on behalf of the Applicant for entitlement of costs associated with the physiotherapy services and chronic pain assessment and costs in the amount of $300.00, as the Respondent failed in its duty to adjust the claim in good faith.
Noor v Intact Insurance Company, 2022 CanLII 53732 (ON LAT)
Vice-Chair: Chloe Lester
Outcome: The Applicant was removed from the MIG and was found to be entitled to two treatment plans. The psychological assessment was rendered payable under s. 38 (11) due to the Respondents failure to issue notice within 10 business days pursuant to the Schedule.
Walters v Aviva General Insurance, 2023 CanLII 26931 (ON LAT)
Adjudicator: Christopher Evans
Outcome: Mr. Kapoor was successful in litigating on behalf of the Applicant for entitlement of costs associated with a chronic pain assessment, psychological assessment, and psychological services, with interest. The Applicant's injuries were deemed non-minor and was not limited to $3,500.00 in medical and rehabilitation benefits after the five-year limitation of the claim.
Hennin v Economical Mutual Insurance Company, 2023 CanLII 50593 (ON LAT)
Adjudicator: Rachel Levitsky
Outcome: Mr. Kapoor was successful in litigating on behalf of the Applicant for entitlement of costs associated with chiropractic treatment, psychological assessment, social work assessment, psychological treatment and an award pursuant to s. 10 of O. Reg. 664 in the amount of $1,000.00 plus interest.
Omar v Aviva General Insurance, 2023 CanLII 91420 (ON LAT)
Adjudicator: Talvin Kaur
Outcome: The Applicant may proceed before the Tribunal with his application because the insurer failed to comply with Section 44(5) of the Schedule. The notice requirements set out in Section 44(5) should be strictly construed and the notice should be closely examined to ensure it complies. If the insurer's notice does not comply with Section 44(5), an insurer cannot rely on the severe remedy available in Section 55 of the Schedule to bar an insured's application from proceeding before the Tribunal.
Anghel v. Intact Insurance Company, 2023 CanLII 98430 (ON LAT)
Adjudicator: Talvin Kaur
Outcome: The Applicant may proceed before the Tribunal with his application because the insurer failed to comply with Section 44(5) of the Schedule. It is trite law that boilerplate medical reasons for denials for treatment plans submitted under the Schedule constitute as no reasons at all. Reasons must be meaningful in order to permit the insured person to decide whether or not to challenge the insurer's determination.
