Safety, Licensing Appeals and Standards Tribunals Ontario Licence Appeal Tribunal
Automobile Accident Benefits Service
Mailing Address: 77 Wellesley St. W., Box 250, Toronto ON M7A 1N3
In-Person Service: 20 Dundas St. W., Suite 530, Toronto ON M5G 2C2 Tel.: 416-314-4260
1-800-255-2214
TTY: 416-916-0548
1-844-403-5906
Fax: 416-325-1060
1-844-618-2566
Website: www.slasto.gov.on.ca/en/AABS
Tribunaux de la sécurité, des appels en matière de permis et des normes Ontario Tribunal d'appel en matière de permis
Service d'aide relative aux indemnités d'accident automobile
Adresse postale : 77, rue Wellesley Ouest, Boîte no 250, Toronto ON M7A 1N3 Adresse municipale : 20, rue Dundas Ouest, Bureau 530, Toronto ON M5G 2C2
Tél. : 416 314-4260
1 800 255-2214
ATS : 416 916-0548
1 844 403-5906
Téléc. : 416 325-1060
1 844 618-2566
Site Web : www.slasto.gov.on.ca/fr/AABS
<!--mc:cls:cover-masthead-->
Tribunal File Number: 16-001825/AABS
In the matter of an Application for Dispute Resolution pursuant to [subsection 280(2)](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/stat/rso-1990-c-i8/latest/rso-1990-c-i8.html) of the [Insurance Act,](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/stat/rso-1990-c-i8/latest/rso-1990-c-i8.html) RSO 1990, c I.8., in relation to statutory accident benefits.
<!--mc:open:cover-parties-->
Between:
<!--mc:close:cover-parties-->
# M. B.
Applicant
and
# The Dominion of Canada General Insurance
Respondent
**DECISION**
**Adjudicator:** Catherine Bickley
**For Applicant:** Not Present
**For Respondent:** Erin Morgan, counsel
**Held by teleconference:** December 14, 2016
<!--mc:close:case-cover-->
## INTRODUCTION
1. During a Motion Hearing, held by teleconference on December 14, 2016, I dismissed this application as abandoned. These are my reasons for that decision.
## BACKGROUND
2. The Applicant, M.B., was injured in an automobile accident on January 1, 2015 and sought benefits pursuant to the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule - Effective September 1, 2010 (“Schedule”).
3. On August 4, 2016, the Applicant, represented by a paralegal, filed an Application with the Tribunal.
4. On October 24, 2016, the Tribunal held a Case Conference by teleconference. Although notice of the Case Conference was given to the Applicant via his legal representative, he did not participate in the Case Conference. His representative told the Tribunal and the Respondent that she had made numerous unsuccessful attempts to contact him.
5. The Respondent brought a motion to dismiss the Application without a hearing on the basis that the Applicant had abandoned his Application. The Tribunal scheduled a teleconference for November 24, 2016 to hear the motion and also scheduled a written hearing on the substantive issues for February 2, 2017.
6. During the time between the Case Conference and the scheduled Motion Hearing, the Applicant’s representative told the Tribunal that she had still been unable to contact him and was no longer representing him. The Tribunal rescheduled the Motion Hearing from November 24 to December 14, 2016 to give the Applicant, who now no longer had legal representation, time to prepare.
7. The case management officer responsible for this file twice tried to contact the Applicant using the phone number listed on the Application. She was unable to reach the Applicant or leave a message for him.
8. On November 23, 2016, the Tribunal sent a Notice of Hearing (“Notice”) to the Applicant, via Purolator, at the address listed on his Application. The Notice included the date and time of the Motion Hearing and the phone number and code needed to participate in the teleconference. The Notice also said:
If you fail to attend the hearing, the Tribunal may make a decision in your absence and without further notice to you.
9. On November 24, 2016, Purolator confirmed that the Notice had been delivered to the address listed on the Application.
10. At no time did the Applicant give the Tribunal a new address or telephone number.
## THE MOTION HEARING
11. On December 14, 2016, the Respondent’s counsel joined the teleconference at the scheduled start time. The Applicant did not. I paused the hearing for half an hour in case the Applicant was simply late. After half an hour, when the Applicant had still not joined the hearing or communicated with the Tribunal, I resumed the hearing and asked the Respondent for its submissions.
12. The Respondent submitted that this Application should be dismissed as abandoned in accordance with the rule 3.4 (d) of the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice, which states,
The Tribunal may dismiss an appeal without a hearing if:
… (d) The party filing the appeal has abandoned the proceeding.
13. The Respondent submitted that the Applicant had not participated in the Case Conference, that his former legal representative had not been able to communicate with and get instructions from him, and that he had not attended the Motion Hearing even though he had apparently received notice. Thus, it appeared that he had abandoned this Application. Further, given the date of denial of the benefits in issue, the Applicant was not about to run out of time to dispute the denials and could reapply to the Tribunal if he wished.
14. As the Applicant did not attend the Motion Hearing, I have no submissions from him on this motion.
## ANALYSIS AND DECISION
15. Rule 4.4 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice requires a party to notify the Tribunal promptly of any change in their contact information. At no time has the Applicant provided the Tribunal with a change of address or phone number.
16. I am satisfied that the Tribunal, by sending the Notice to the address listed on the Application and phoning the phone number listed on the Application, made all reasonable efforts to advise the Applicant of this Motion Hearing.
17. Purolator has confirmed that the Notice was delivered to the address on the Application. That Notice warned that if the Applicant did not attend the hearing, the Tribunal could make a decision in his absence.
18. I conclude that the Applicant has either received the Notice and chosen not to participate in the Motion Hearing or has moved and failed to provide either his former legal representative or the Tribunal with his new address and telephone number.
19. Accordingly, the Application is dismissed as abandoned and the written hearing scheduled for February 2, 2017 is cancelled.
Released: January 19, 2017
# Catherine Bickley,
Adjudicator
minicounsel