Licence Appeal Tribunal
Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number: 20-007398/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:
Dishanthan Thiyagaraja
Applicant
and
Aviva General Insurance
Respondent
DECISION AND ORDER
ADJUDICATOR:
Theresa McGee, Vice-Chair
APPEARANCES:
For the Applicant:
Dishanthan Thiyagaraja, Self-Represented (Did not attend)
For the Respondent:
Esther Chi-So, Adjuster
Riley Groskopf, Counsel
Interpreter:
Mr. Chandrasekaran (Tamil Language)
Court Reporter:
Simone De Lima
HEARD: by Videoconference:
July 11, 2022
BACKGROUND
1The applicant was involved in an automobile accident on November 24, 2017, and sought benefits pursuant to the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule - Effective September 1, 2010. The applicant was denied certain benefits by the respondent and submitted an application to the Licence Appeal Tribunal - Automobile Accident Benefits Service ("Tribunal").
2A three-day videoconference hearing was scheduled for July 11, 12, and 13, 2022.
ISSUES
3The issues in dispute are as set out in the Tribunal's March 10, 2021 Case Conference Report and Order.
ANALYSIS
4The applicant's counsel wrote to the Tribunal on June 23, 2022 requesting that he be removed from the record. Counsel advised that he was unaware if the applicant had taken steps to retain new counsel or if he intended to represent himself at the videoconference hearing.
5On June 23, 24, and 29, 2022, the Tribunal attempted to contact the applicant by email and by phone. These attempts were unsuccessful. On June 29, 2022, the Tribunal sent a letter to the applicant to inquire about his intention to proceed with the videoconference hearing. The Tribunal requested a response by July 6, 2022. No response was received.
6On July 5, 2022, the Tribunal sent a hearing status request to both parties. No response was received from the applicant.
7On July 11, 2022, the Tribunal convened the videoconference hearing. In attendance were the adjuster and counsel for the respondent, a court reporter, and a Tamil language interpreter. The applicant did not attend. Counsel for the respondent reported that he had not received correspondence from the applicant in the lead-up to the hearing. The applicant had not filed any materials for the hearing. The Tribunal held the matter down for 25 minutes to provide time for the applicant to join the hearing. The Tribunal then ended the videoconference hearing.
8The applicant bears the onus of proving entitlement to the benefits sought in his application. As the applicant did not attend to present evidence or make submissions, he has fallen short of establishing entitlement to the claimed benefits. On this basis, I am ordering the application dismissed.
ORDER
9The application is dismissed. The Tribunal file is now closed.
Released: July 28, 2022
Theresa McGee
Vice-Chair