Licence Appeal Tribunal
Tribunal File Number: 16-004448/AABS
Case Name: 16-004448 v Chubb Insurance
In the matter of an Application pursuant to subsection 280(2) of the Insurance Act, RSO 1990, c I.8., in relation to statutory accident benefits
Between:
J. L. H. C.
Applicant
And
Chubb Insurance
Respondent
DECISION
Adjudicator: Monica Purdy
Appearances:
Applicant: Not in attendance
Respondent: Nina Takeda
Counsel for the Respondent: Tim Crljenica
Held by Teleconference: March 13, 2017
INTRODUCTION
- In a case conference held by teleconference on March 13, 2017, I dismissed the application as abandoned. The reasons for my decision are as follows:
BACKGROUND
The applicant was injured in an automobile accident on July 1, 2014 and sought benefits pursuant to the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule - Effective September 1, 2010 (the ''Schedule'').
The applicant filed his application with the Tribunal on December 16, 2016 to resolve the issues in dispute.
ISSUES IN DISPUTE
The issues listed in the application filed with the Tribunal are as follows:
Is the applicant entitled to receive non-earner benefits in the amount of $185.00 weekly for the period August 6, 2014 and ongoing, denied by the respondent December 19, 2014?
Is the applicant entitled to receive medical benefits for physiotherapy services, recommended by Dr. Godrej Engineer from Physiomed Sherway in treatment plan dated on December 19, 2014, denied by the respondent on March 17, 2015?
Is the applicant entitled to interest on the overdue amounts?
NOTICE TO THE APPLICANT
On March 1, 2017 the Tribunal held a case conference by teleconference. A notice of the case conference dated February 2, 2017 was mailed to the applicant, at his last known address by regular mail. A notice was also sent via email. The applicant did not attend the case conference.
Further to the case conference that was held on March 1, 2017, a case conference report and order was sent, via email and regular mail, to the applicant notifying him that a resumption of the case conference was scheduled for March 13, 2017 at 3:00 p.m. Neither the email nor letter was returned undeliverable to the Tribunal.
In the March 1, 2017 case conference report and order the applicant was informed, that pursuant to Rule 3 of the Licence Appeal Tribunal Rules of Practice and Procedure, his application will be considered abandoned and may be dismissed without a hearing if he does not attend the case conference on March 13, 2017 and provide an acceptable explanation for his failure to attend the case conference on March 1, 2017.
The applicant was also directed to submit a case conference summary prior to the March 13, 2017 resumption of the case conference.
On the day of the resumption of the case conference the applicant did not attend. After a 20 minute recess, the case conference commenced without the applicant.
I took submissions from the respondent. The respondent submitted that the application should be dismissed as abandoned due to the applicant’s lack of attendance at two case conferences.
ANALYSIS AND DECISION
Rule 6.1 and 6.2 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedure state, that the Tribunal may serve a document on a party by regular mail and the document is deemed to have been received on the fifth day after the post mark date, not including holidays. The Rules also allow for a document to be served via email.
Rule 4.4 requires a party to notify the Tribunal promptly of any change in their contact information.
I am satisfied, that the original Notice of case conference and the Notice of the resumption were sent to the applicant’s last known address and that the Tribunal complied with its Rules. On this basis I find that the applicant did receive the Notices from the Tribunal and chose not to attend the case conferences.
To date, the Tribunal has not received a case conference summary from the applicant or response to the Tribunal’s emails.
I find that the Tribunal made reasonable efforts to advise the applicant by notifying him of the resumption case conference; and informing him that the application will be considered abandoned and may be dismissed without a hearing if he does not attend.
Accordingly, the The Tribunal considers the application abandoned and dismisses the appeal.
Released: April 6, 2017
___________________________
Monica Purdy, Adjudicator