Licence Appeal Tribunal
Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number: 21-010676/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:
Patrick Martin
Applicant
and
Economical Insurance Company
Respondent
DECISION
ADJUDICATOR:
Christopher Evans
APPEARANCES:
For the Applicant:
Madiha Qurashi, Counsel
For the Respondent:
Stephen Whibbs, Counsel
HEARD:
By Way of Written Submissions
OVERVIEW
1Patrick Martin, the applicant, was involved in an automobile accident on September 3, 2019, and sought benefits pursuant to the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule – Effective September 1, 2010 (including amendments effective June 1, 2016) (“Schedule”). The applicant was denied benefits by Economical Insurance Company, the respondent, and applied to the Licence Appeal Tribunal - Automobile Accident Benefits Service (“Tribunal”) for resolution of the dispute.
2At issue is whether the applicant is entitled to physiotherapy and psychological services, psychological and chronic pain assessments, interest, and an award under s. 10 of Regulation 664: Automobile Insurance.
ISSUES
3The issues in dispute are:
Is the applicant barred from proceeding to a hearing for all the benefits at issue because he failed to attend insurer’s examinations under s. 44 of the Schedule?
Is the applicant entitled to $3,696.50 for physiotherapy services, proposed by Mackenzie Medical Rehabilitation Centre in a treatment plan/OCF-18 (“plan”) submitted on September 17, 2019 and denied on September 18, 2019?
Is the applicant entitled to $200.00 for physiotherapy services, proposed by Mackenzie Medical Rehabilitation Centre in a plan submitted on December 3, 2019 and denied on December 11, 2019?
Is the applicant entitled to $1,977.05 for physiotherapy services, proposed by Mackenzie Medical Rehabilitation Centre in a plan submitted on March 9, 2020 and denied on March 18, 2020?
Is the applicant entitled to $1,384.70 for physiotherapy services, proposed by Mackenzie Medical Rehabilitation Centre in a plan submitted on June 29, 2020 and denied on July 9, 2020?
Is the applicant entitled to $4,912.80 for psychological services, proposed by 101 Assessments in a plan submitted on April 8, 2020 and denied on April 14, 2020?
Is the applicant entitled to $2,460.00 for a psychological assessment, proposed by 101 Assessments in a plan submitted on January 14, 2020 and denied on January 15, 2020?
Is the applicant entitled to $2,460.00 for a chronic pain assessment, proposed by 101 Assessments in a plan submitted on August 12, 2020 and denied on August 20, 2020?
Is the applicant entitled to an award under s. 10 of Regulation 664?
Is the applicant entitled to interest on any overdue payment of benefits?
ANALYSIS
4A written hearing was scheduled for March 17, 2023. The applicant did not file submissions. In an email dated March 6, 2023, his counsel advised that there had been a breakdown in the solicitor-client relationship and requested that she be removed as counsel of record. The Tribunal followed up with the applicant twice. On April 5, 2023, he advised that he did not want to be contacted again. Neither party took any further steps with respect to the application.
5The onus is on the applicant to prove that he is entitled to the benefits in dispute, interest, and an award. He had the opportunity to file evidence and submissions but did not do so. He has therefore not met his onus.
6As there has been a breakdown in the solicitor-client relationship, the applicant’s counsel is removed as counsel of record pursuant to s. 25.0.1 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, RSO 1990, c S.22.
ORDER
7The application is dismissed.
8The applicant’s counsel is removed as counsel of record.
Released: August 17, 2023
Christopher Evans
Adjudicator