Licence Appeal Tribunal
Released Date: 01/21/2021
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:
Dayjuan Francis
Applicant
and
Aviva Insurance Company
Respondent
ORDER TO DISMISS
ADJUDICATOR:
Avril A. Farlam, Vice Chair
OVERVIEW
1Dayjuan Francis (“applicant”) was involved in an automobile accident on July 30, 2017 and sought benefits pursuant to the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule - Effective September 1, 2010 (the ''Schedule''). The applicant was denied certain benefits by Aviva Insurance Company (“respondent”) and submitted an application to the Licence Application Tribunal - Automobile Accident Benefits Service (“Tribunal”).
ISSUES
2The issues to be decided in this hearing are:
i. Are the applicant’s injuries predominantly minor as defined in s. 3 of the Schedule?
ii. Is the applicant entitled to a non-earner benefit of $185.00 per week from August 7, 2018 to August 7, 2020?
iii. Is the applicant entitled to $2,460.00 for a psychological assessment, recommended by 101 Assessments in a treatment plan dated January 14, 2019?
iv. Is the applicant entitled to the following chiropractic treatment plans (OCF-18s) recommended by Mackenzie Medical Rehabilitation:
a. $1,977.05 (treatment plan dated March 9, 2019); and
b. $200.94 (treatment plan dated November 12, 2018 in the amount of $1,300.00 partially approved in the amount of $1,099.06)?
v. Is the respondent liable to pay an award under Regulation 664 because it unreasonably withheld or delayed payments to the applicant?
vi. Is the applicant entitled to interest on any overdue payment of benefits?
HEARING
3At the start of the videoconference hearing of this matter on December 15, 2020, respondent’s counsel attended with a representative of the respondent but neither the applicant nor anyone authorized to speak on his behalf attended the hearing. Tribunal staff attempted to contact the applicant during the hearing but were unable to do so because the applicant’s phone number was incorrect. The applicant had not contacted the Tribunal prior to December 15, 2020 to advise that he could not attend the hearing. Tribunal staff could not contact the applicant at his email because an email sent December 14, 2020 to the applicant reminding him of the hearing was returned as undelivered.
4After hearing submissions from respondent’s counsel, I found that the applicant appeared to have abandoned his appeal under Rule 3.4(d) of the Tribunal’s Common Rules of Practice & Procedure by failing to attend the videoconference hearing on December 15, 2020, by failing to respond to the respondent’s brief served October 21, 2020, by failing to file documents for the hearing and by failing to communicate with the respondent and the Tribunal regarding his appeal.
5A Notice of Intent to Dismiss An Appeal (“Notice”) dated December 18, 2020 was issued pursuant to Rules 3.5(a) and (b) of the Common Rules. Under Rule 3.5(c), the applicant was given the right to make written submissions to the Tribunal by January 15, 2021 to explain why the appeal should not be dismissed. The Notice was sent to the last known address the applicant provided to the Tribunal.
6As of January 20, 2021, the applicant failed to provide any written submissions for the Tribunal to consider under Rule 3.5(d) as to why the appeal should not be dismissed.
7The applicant was given proper notice of the videoconference hearing as well as the Notice to Dismiss under Rule 3.5. Rule 3.4(d) provides that the Tribunal may dismiss an appeal if the applicant is found to have abandoned the proceeding.
8For these reasons, I find that the applicant has abandoned his appeal. Accordingly, his application is dismissed without a hearing.
ORDER
9The appeal is dismissed as abandoned pursuant to Rule 3.4(d).
Released: January 21, 2021
Avril A. Farlam
Vice Chair