Wright v. Intact Insurance Company, 2022 CanLII 57388

Citation: Wright v. Intact Insurance Company, 2022 ONLAT 20-012169/AABS

Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number: 20-012169/AABS

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:

Jordon Wright

Applicant

and

Intact Insurance Company

Respondent

DECISION

ADJUDICATOR: Jessica Cavdar

APPEARANCES:

For the Applicant: Jordon Wright, Self-Represented (did not appear)

For the Respondent: David Koots, Counsel

HEARD by Videoconference: June 13, 2022

REASONS FOR DECISION

BACKGROUND

1The applicant was involved in an automobile accident on December 31, 2017, and sought benefits pursuant to the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule Effective September 1, 2010 (including amendments effective June 1, 2016). The applicant was denied certain benefits by the respondent and submitted an application to the Licence Appeal Tribunal - Automobile Accident Benefits Service ("Tribunal").

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

2On July 14, 2021, the parties participated in a case conference before Adjudicator Anita John. The applicant was represented by Manjot Heer. Adjudicator John ordered a four-day videoconference hearing for June 13, 14, 15 and 16, 2022.

3On March 16, 2022, the applicant's counsel advised the Tribunal that they were no longer representing the applicant and provided the Tribunal with the applicant's last-known mailing and email addresses.

4On March 18, 2022, the Tribunal provided notice to the applicant of the subject videoconference hearing. The Notice of Videoconference Hearing contained the scheduled hearing dates and times of the videoconference hearing. This notice was sent via mail to the applicant's mailing address in Lakefield, Ontario that was provided to the Tribunal by the applicant's former counsel on March 16, 2022.

5On March 29, 2022, the Tribunal wrote to the applicant directly, asking whether he had a new representative or if he intended to proceed in this matter without counsel. The applicant did not respond.

6The applicant further failed to attend a motion hearing that occurred on May 27, 2022.

7On June 8, 2022, the Tribunal again provided notice to the parties of the subject videoconference hearing. The Notice of Videoconference Hearing contained the scheduled hearing dates and the time of the videoconference hearing. This notice was sent via email to the applicant's email address provided by his former counsel on March 16, 2022.

8On June 9, 2022, the Tribunal provided the Zoom link for the videoconference hearing to the parties via email. This notice was sent to the applicant's email address that his former counsel had provided to the Tribunal.

9The applicant had not responded to nor communicated with the Tribunal or the respondent since the applicant's former counsel advised the Tribunal on March 16, 2022 that they were no longer representing him.

10As of June 13, 2022, the date of the videoconference hearing, the applicant had not communicated in any way with either the Tribunal or the respondent, despite receiving proper notice of the subject hearing as well as of the motion hearing that was held on May 27, 2022.

HEARING

11On June 13, 2022, the videoconference hearing commenced at 9:30 a.m. via Zoom at the link that the Tribunal had emailed to the parties on June 9, 2022.

12Counsel for the respondent attended at the videoconference hearing at 9:30 a.m. The adjudicator and the respondent waited on the Zoom videoconference for the applicant to appear for 35 minutes. The applicant did not appear.

ISSUES

13The following issues are in dispute:

1. Are the applicant's injuries predominantly minor as defined in s. 3 of the Schedule and therefore subject to treatment within the $3,500.00 limit and in the Minor Injury Guideline?
2. Is the applicant entitled to an income replacement benefit of $400.00 per week from January 7, 2018 to date and ongoing?
3. Is the applicant entitled to the assessments proposed by Dr. Ian Horseman as follows: i. $3,809.92 for chiropractic services in a treatment plan submitted on February 22, 2018, denied on April 20, 2018; ii. $3,809.92 for chiropractic services in a plan submitted on May 7, 2018, denied on May 18, 2018; iii. $1,300.00 for chiropractic services in a plan submitted on June 6, 2018, denied on July 19, 2018; iv. $225.62 for chiropractic services in a plan submitted on June 20, 2018, denied on July 4, 2018; and v. $2,707.44 for chiropractic services in a plan submitted on July 17, 2018, denied on August 7, 2018?
4. Is the respondent liable to pay an award under s. 10 of O. Reg. 664 because it unreasonably withheld or delayed payments to the applicant?
5. Is the applicant entitled to interest on any overdue payment of benefits?

RESULT

14The applicant did not attend the videoconference hearing at 9:30 a.m. on June 13, 2022, despite having received proper notice from the Tribunal on multiple occasions, as described above.

15Since he did not attend the hearing, the applicant led no evidence regarding his entitlement to the benefits in dispute.

16Accordingly, the applicant has not met his burden of proving that his accident-related impairments warrant removal from the Minor Injury Guideline; that he is entitled to income replacement benefits; that the treatment and assessment plans in dispute are reasonable and necessary; that interest is payable; or that a s. 10 award is appropriate.

ANALYSIS

17As the applicant presented no evidence at the hearing to support his position of being removed from the MIG or whether he is entitled to the benefits in dispute, I therefore find that the applicant remains in the MIG, the treatment plans are not reasonable nor necessary, and the applicant is not entitled to income replacement benefits.

CONCLUSION

18The applicant is within the Minor Injury Guideline and the treatment plans in dispute are not reasonable or necessary. The applicant is not entitled to income replacement benefits. As no benefits are payable, neither interest nor a s. 10 award is payable.