Licence Appeal Tribunal
Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number: 22-008161/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:
Mahad Mohamed
Applicant
and
BelairDirect Insurance Company
Respondent
DECISION
ADJUDICATOR:
Clive Forbes
APPEARANCES:
For the Applicant:
Mahad Mohamed, Self-Represented (Did not attend)
For the Respondent:
Heather Morrow, Adjuster
Omar Sewhdat, Counsel
Court Reporter:
Guidio Riccioni
HEARD: by Videoconference:
November 14, 2023
OVERVIEW
1Mahad Mohamed, the applicant, was involved in an automobile accident on November 30, 2021, and sought benefits pursuant to the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule - Effective September 1, 2010 (including amendments effective June 1, 2016) (the "Schedule"). The applicant was denied benefits by the respondent, BelairDirect Insurance Company, and applied to the Licence Appeal Tribunal - Automobile Accident Benefits Service (the "Tribunal") for resolution of the dispute.
2On June 23, 2023, the parties were sent a Notice of the videoconference hearing scheduled for November 14 to 16, 2023 starting at 9:30 am each day. On October 13, 2023, pursuant to the Licence Appeal Tribunal Rules ("Rules") 24.4, the Tribunal received correspondence and submissions from the applicant's counsel, with the applicant copied, advising that she was removing herself as the applicant's representative. On October 23, 2023, the Tribunal acknowledged receipt of the applicant's counsel's email and advised her and the applicant that the Tribunal's records have been updated to reflect the change and that the videoconference hearing will proceed as scheduled.
3Also on October 23, 2023, the Tribunal emailed the applicant to find out the status of his representation and for him to advise if he will be self represented or if he had retained new counsel. In addition, the applicant was re-sent a copy of the Notice of the videoconference hearing and a reminder that the hearing was scheduled to start at 9:30 am on November 14, 2023.
4I am satisfied that on October 23, 2023, the Tribunal sent the applicant proper notice of this scheduled hearing because it was sent to the applicant's email address on file, which is the same address provided by his former counsel. Further, the Tribunal did not receive any undeliverable notices after sending the notice. Moreover, the Tribunal's records also reveal that voice messages pertaining to the hearing were left on the applicant's mobile number that was provided.
5At the scheduled videoconference hearing on November 14, 2023, the applicant was not in attendance and no explanation for the non-attendance was provided by the applicant in advance.
6At the hearing, the respondent submitted that it made numerous attempts to contact the applicant before the hearing commenced but it was unsuccessful in doing so. I also stood the matter down for approximately one hour to allow the Tribunal's Case Management Officer to contact the applicant, who is self represented, and there was no answer. While the Tribunal also left messages with the applicant, the Tribunal did not receive a response from the applicant during the course of the scheduled hearing or anytime prior to the release of this decision.
ISSUES
7The issues in dispute are:
i. Is the applicant entitled to an income replacement benefit in the amount of $400.00 per week from December 2, 2021, and ongoing?
ii. Is the respondent liable to pay an award under s. 10 of Reg. 664 because it unreasonably withheld or delayed payments to the applicant?
iii. Is the applicant entitled to interest on any overdue payment of benefits?
RESULT
8I find that because of the applicant's non-attendance at the videoconference hearing and his failure to adduce any evidence to support his application, he has not met his onus to prove entitlement to the benefits claimed.
ANALYSIS
The applicant's application is dismissed
9The applicant failed to attend the hearing and failed to present evidence or make submissions. The applicant bears the burden of proof of establishing his entitlement to the benefits in dispute at this hearing. As the applicant did not participate in or present any evidence at the hearing, I am therefore unable to find that he is entitled to the benefits that he is seeking.
10Pursuant to Rule 4.4 of the Rules an applicant is required to notify the Tribunal promptly of any change in contact information. In addition, Rules 6.1 and 6.2 further set out the process by which the Tribunal may serve a document on a party by regular mail and email.
11I am satisfied that the Tribunal complied with the Rules as noted above and that the applicant was properly notified of the hearing date and time. Also, I find that the Tribunal made more than reasonable efforts to ensure that the applicant was aware of the hearing date and of his right to submit evidence to the Tribunal for the hearing.
12Section 7(1) of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, R.S.O 1990, c. S.22, provides that where a Tribunal is satisfied that proper notice of a hearing has been provided to the parties it may proceed with the hearing in a party's absence. In addition, Rules 3.7 and 3.7.1 require the applicant to attend the hearing and for the Tribunal to wait 30 minutes from the scheduled start of the hearing. Therefore, being satisfied that the applicant was provided with adequate notice, I proceeded with the hearing in the applicant's absence. After waiting approximately one hour, the applicant did not attend the hearing that was in progress.
13As the applicant failed to present a case, I find that the applicant has not met his onus to prove entitlement to the benefits claimed.
ORDER
14I find that because of the applicant's non-attendance at the videoconference hearing and his failure to adduce any evidence to support his application, he has not met his onus to prove entitlement to the benefits claimed.
15The application is dismissed.
Released: December 13, 2023
Clive Forbes
Adjudicator