Licence Appeal Tribunal
Release date: 04/08/2021
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:
Shyamala Kirubakaran
Applicant
and
Unifund Assurance Company
Respondent
DECISION
ADJUDICATOR:
Jesse A. Boyce, Vice-Chair
APPEARANCES:
For the Applicant:
No submissions
For the Respondent:
Ramandeep Pandher, Counsel
HEARD:
By way of written submissions
OVERVIEW
1The applicant was involved in an automobile accident on May 31, 2015, and sought benefits from the respondent, Unifund, pursuant to the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule - Effective September 1, 2010 (the ''Schedule'').1
2The Case Conference Order dated October 24, 2019 scheduled a written hearing for April 20, 2020. A Notice of Written Hearing was provided to the applicant and their representative outlining submission dates. The applicant’s initial written submissions were to be filed on March 16, 2020. However, the applicant never filed written submissions and, despite several attempts by the Tribunal to contact them—as well as several inquiries for same from Unifund—the applicant has not participated in the proceedings and has not presented a case.
ISSUES IN DISPUTE
3The issues in dispute were identified as follows:
a. Is the applicant entitled to receive a weekly income replacement benefit in the amount of $252.96 per week for the period June 6, 2017 to date and ongoing?
b. Is the applicant entitled to receive the balance of a partially approved medical benefit in the amount of $116.43 for chiropractic services recommended by East Sheppard Rehabilitation in a treatment plan submitted April 4, 2017 and denied by the respondent on October 5, 2017?
c. Is the applicant entitled to receive the balance of a partially approved medical benefit in the amount of $120.11 for chiropractic services recommended by East Sheppard Rehabilitation in a treatment plan submitted April 4, 2017 and denied by the respondent on October 5, 2017?
d. Is the applicant entitled to interest on any overdue payment of benefits?
RESULT
4The application is dismissed, as the applicant has abandoned their application.
ANALYSIS
5It has been nearly one year since the written hearing was scheduled to proceed. The applicant did not file written submissions or a reply by their deadline and did not present a case. They did not respond to communications from the Tribunal. Unifund requests that the application be dismissed as abandoned.
6I agree and find that the applicant has abandoned their application. Despite proper notice and multiple attempts to prompt their participation, the applicant has not taken any steps to demonstrate that they intend to proceed. Further, and in any case, it is well-settled that the applicant bears the burden of demonstrating entitlement to the benefits they seek on a balance of probabilities. As they have not made submissions or filed evidence, the applicant has also failed to meet their burden. Accordingly, they are not entitled to payment for the benefits in dispute.
7In its submissions, Unifund requested an opportunity to make submissions on costs pursuant to Rule 19 of the Tribunal’s Common Rules of Practice and Procedure. If it elects to do so, Unifund shall provide its costs submissions to the Tribunal within 10 business days. Submissions should not exceed two pages in length and shall set out the reasons for its request and the particulars of the applicant’s conduct that are alleged to be unreasonable, frivolous, vexatious, or in bad faith.
ORDER
8The application is dismissed. Unifund shall provide its costs submissions, if any, to the Tribunal within 10 business days.
Released: April 8, 2021
Jesse A. Boyce, Vice Chair
Footnotes
- O. Reg. 34/10, as amended.