Hasan Meherab v. Allstate Canada, 2023 CanLII 103815

Meherab v. Allstate Canada

Citation: Meherab v. Allstate Canada, 2023 ONLAT 22-009513/AABS - PI

Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number: 22-009513/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:

Hasan Meherab

Applicant

and

Allstate Canada

Respondent

PRELIMINARY ISSUE HEARING DECISION AND ORDER

ADJUDICATOR:

Tavlin Kaur

APPEARANCES:

For the Applicant:

Zahangir Kabir, Representative

For the Respondent:

Shelby Chung, Counsel

Heard by way of written submissions

OVERVIEW

1Hasan Meherab, the applicant, was involved in an automobile accident on November 11, 2020, and sought benefits pursuant to the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule - Effective September 1, 2010 (the “Schedule”). The applicant was denied benefits by the respondent, Allstate Canada, and applied to the Licence Appeal Tribunal - Automobile Accident Benefits Service (the “Tribunal”) for resolution of the dispute.

PRELIMINARY ISSUE IN DISPUTE

2The preliminary issue to be decided is whether the applicant entered into a valid full and final settlement of this matter with the respondent. If so, is the applicant precluded from proceeding with a claim for rehabilitation benefits?

3The respondent raised issues with the timing of the applicant’s submissions. The applicant did not file their submissions in accordance with the timelines set out in the Case Conference Report and Order dated May 9, 2023. If such types of issues arise, it is incumbent on parties to file a motion with the Tribunal to address it. Both parties failed to file a motion to address either an extension of time for the applicant or a motion to address the delay in filing the submissions. As such, I decline to consider this issue.

RESULT

4The Tribunal does not have the jurisdiction to consider this issue because the applicant did not meet the requirements in section 9.1(8) of R.R.O. 1990, Regulation 664 (“Regulation 664"). This application is dismissed for the lack of jurisdiction.

ANALYSIS

Background

5The applicant was involved in an accident on November 11, 2020. On July 30, 2022, the parties entered into a full and final settlement for $13,000.00 for past and future medical benefits.

Parties’ positions

6The applicant submits that the respondent claims to have paid money for rehabilitation benefits, but the settlement does not mention that. Rather, rehabilitation benefits are noted as $0.00.

7The respondent submits that the applicant has not met his onus of proving that he did not enter into a valid full and final settlement agreement that disposed of his claim for statutory accident benefits in accordance with section 9.1 of Regulation 664. It is the respondent’s position that there was a valid settlement which was not rescinded, and the applicant did not return the consideration for the settlement. As such, the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear this matter.

Regulation 664

8Regulation 664 provides a framework for agreements that finally dispose of a claim or dispute in respect of a person’s entitlement to statutory accident benefits under the Schedule. Section 9.1(8) of the Regulation sets out the process of for when an applicant may apply to the Tribunal with respect to benefits that were subject to a settlement. According to section 9.1(8), “no person may apply to the Licence Appeal Tribunal under subsection 280(2) of the Act with respect to benefits that were the subject of a settlement or a purported settlement unless the person has returned the money received as consideration for the settlement.”

9Before an individual may apply to the Tribunal in relation to benefits that were subject to a settlement, they must return the money that they received as consideration. The legislation is clear that returning the settlement money is mandatory. Based on the evidence before me, it appears that the applicant has not returned the money to the respondent. He has not led any evidence that satisfies the mandatory requirement of section 9.1(8). Therefore, he has not successfully rescinded the settlement in accordance with the legislation. Accordingly, the Tribunal cannot adjudicate this dispute until the applicant meets the mandatory requirements under section 9.1(8) of Regulation 664.

10I decline to make a finding on whether the parties agreed to a full and final settlement of the matter at this stage because the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to do so.

ORDER

11The application is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.