Citation: Abdi v. Aviva Insurance Canada, 2023 ONLAT 21-010403/AABS

Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number: 21-010403/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:

Salman Abdi

Applicant

and

Aviva Insurance Canada

Respondent

DECISION

ADJUDICATOR:

Terry Prowse

APPEARANCES:

For the Applicant:

Saklman Abdi, Self-Represented (Not in Attendance)

For the Respondent:

Harkirat Shardra, Litigation Specialist

Yann Grand-Clement, Counsel

HEARD: In-Person:

July 31, 2023

OVERVIEW

1Salman Abdi, the applicant, was involved in an automobile accident on February 28, 2020, 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, Aviva Insurance Canada, and applied to the Licence Appeal Tribunal - Automobile Accident Benefits Service (the “Tribunal”) for resolution of the dispute.

2This matter was scheduled for a 4-day video conference hearing. The applicant did not attend the hearing and no reasons were supplied for his absence. The Tribunal and respondent attempted to contact him for over an hour, using his last-know contact details on file with the Tribunal. Neither the Tribunal nor the respondent made contact.

3This is the second hearing that has been scheduled regarding this matter. The first, set for June 12-15, 2023, was adjourned on the first day because the applicant claimed to not know if he was being represented by counsel and needed time to confirm. The adjournment order, dated June 15, 2023, set out the following:

i. The hearing was to proceed within 45-60 days, if possible (it was scheduled for July 31 – August 3, 2023);

ii. The applicant was to file a document brief and witness list by June 26, 2023 (neither were filed);

iii. The adjournment was on a peremptory basis; and

iv. The applicant was advised to contact his representative immediately. He was also cautioned that another adjournment would likely not be granted if he again claimed confusion about being represented.

4I am satisfied the applicant had ample notification of today’s videoconference hearing. He requested the adjournment of the June 2023 hearing, and he was present when the above orders were conveyed to him. The Tribunal mailed the hard copy of the above order to the applicant on June 28, 2023, and the Notice of Videoconference Hearing on June 30, 2023 to the address on file.

5In my view, given the history of the claim, that the applicant was granted a previous, peremptory adjournment to allow for his participation and where the Tribunal provided adequate notice of the hearing and the steps required to ensure his participation, it was appropriate for today’s hearing to proceed in the absence of the applicant, pursuant to section 7(1) of the Statutory Powers and Procedures Act.

ISSUES IN DISPUTE

6The following issues are in dispute:

i. 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 Minor Injury Guideline limit?

ii. Is the applicant entitled to a non-earner benefit in the amount of $185.00 per week from February 28, 2020 to February 28, 2022?

iii. Is the applicant entitled to $3,861.01 for physiotherapy services, proposed by Allied Physiotherapy & Wellness in a treatment plan/OCF-18 (“plan”) submitted on June 25, 2020 and denied on July 10, 2020?

iv. Is the applicant entitled to $3,366.58 for physiotherapy services, proposed by Allied Physiotherapy & Wellness in a plan submitted on January 26, 2021 and denied on February 9, 2021?

v. Is the applicant entitled to interest on any overdue payment of benefits?

RESULT

7The applicant did not satisfy his burden to demonstrate that removal from the Mig is warranted or that he is entitled to the disputed benefits. The application is dismissed.

ANALYSIS

8The applicant bears the burden of demonstrating on a balance of probabilities that removal from the MIG is warranted and that they are entitled to the benefits they seek. Today’s hearing was on a peremptory basis, requiring the applicant’s attendance to present his case for removal from the MIG and entitlement to the benefits in dispute. Given that he did not comply with Tribunal orders, did not attend the hearing himself, did not send a representative, and did not provide a reason for his absence, it follows that he did not present a case sufficient to meet his burden and his application must fail, as he abandoned his application.

ORDER

9The applicant has not demonstrated that removal from the MIG is warranted or that he is entitled to any of the benefits in dispute. The application is dismissed.