Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number: 22-006011/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:
Abhinav Noel Singh
Applicant
and
Sonnet Insurance Company
Respondent
DECISION
VICE-CHAIR:
Brett Todd
APPEARANCES:
For the Applicant:
No Submissions Filed
For the Respondent:
Ainsley Shannon, Counsel
HEARD:
By way of written submissions
OVERVIEW
1Abhinav Noel Singh (the “applicant”) was involved in an automobile accident on April 25, 2019 and sought benefits pursuant to the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule – Effective September 1, 2010 (including amendments effective June 1, 2016) (the “Schedule”). Sonnet Insurance Company (the “respondent”) denied a claim for certain benefits. The applicant filed an application with the Licence Appeal Tribunal – Automobile Accident Benefits Service (the “Tribunal”) for resolution of the dispute.
ISSUES IN DISPUTE
2The issues in dispute are:
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?
Is the applicant entitled to $2,144.93 for psychological assessment proposed by Dr. Judith Pilowsky, submitted on October 20, 2021 and denied October 28, 2021?
Is the applicant entitled to $2,960.26 for psychotherapy treatments proposed by Dr. Judith Pilowsky, submitted on January 4, 2022 and denied January 26, 2022?
Is the applicant entitled to interest on any overdue payment of benefits?
RESULT
3The application is dismissed. As the applicant has made no submissions for this hearing, I find that he has not met his evidentiary burden with regard to the issues in dispute.
ANALYSIS
Proceeding in the Absence of One of the Parties
4I find that the Tribunal has met its notice obligations and that I may proceed with this written hearing.
5Proceeding with a written hearing where a party fails to participate, under s. 7(2) of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, RSO 1990, c. S.22 (the “SPPA”), requires the Tribunal to be satisfied that the absent party received notice of the written hearing that complies with ss. 6(1) and 6(4) of the SPPA.
6Both parties participated in a case conference that was held on February 10, 2023. A Case Conference Report and Order (“CCRO”) was released on February 28, 2023 detailing the issues in dispute as described above and setting this matter down for a written hearing.
7On March 31, 2023, the Tribunal emailed a Notice of Written Hearing (“NoWH”) to both parties (including the applicant and his legal representative) that set the written hearing date for November 17, 2023. As a result of the timeline established by the CCRO and the NoWH, the applicant’s written submissions were due on October 18, 2023 and the respondent’s written submissions were due on November 3, 2023. The applicant’s reply submissions, if any, were due on November 10, 2023.
8This NoWH also included the provisions that the hearing adjudicator may not consider documents filed after deadlines ordered by the Tribunal, and that the Tribunal may make a decision without the participation of one or both parties if submissions are not filed.
9The applicant’s legal representative filed notice with the Tribunal on September 18, 2023 withdrawing from this matter.
10There is no indication in Tribunal records that the applicant filed submissions and evidence in accordance with the dates established in the CCRO and NoWH. Nor is there any indication in Tribunal records that the applicant replied to an email sent by the Tribunal on November 6, 2023 regarding the status of this application and the missing submissions.
11In addition, there is no indication that the applicant’s contact information was incorrect in Tribunal records. If this changed during the course of the application, the applicant had an obligation under Rule 4.4 of this Tribunal’s Rules to provide the correct contact information to the Tribunal in writing.
12The respondent filed its submissions on November 6, 2023 in accordance with the timeline set in the CCRO and the NoWH.
13Given the above, I am satisfied that the applicant received notice as required by ss. 6(1) and 6(4) of the SPPA. I am also satisfied that neither party requested a change of format from a written hearing under s. 6(4)(b) of the SPPA.
14For the above reasons, I may proceed with this written hearing pursuant to s. 7(2) of the SPPA.
The Applicant Has Not Met His Burden
15I find that the applicant had the opportunity to make submissions for this hearing and chose not to do so. Accordingly, he has failed to meet his burden regarding the issues in dispute.
16As held in Scarlett v. Belair Insurance 2015 ONSC 3635, the evidentiary onus is on the applicant to demonstrate that she is entitled to any claimed benefits.
17The applicant failed to meet this onus as he did not file written submissions with the Tribunal in accordance with the timeline established by the CCRO and the NoWH, as noted above. Although I am prepared to provide added latitude to a self-represented party, in this instance and as of the date of this decision, the applicant has had nearly five months to secure new legal representation, prepare to represent himself, or request an extension of Tribunal hearing deadlines. By my view, this has afforded the applicant sufficient time to consider these options and to contact the Tribunal regarding the status of his application. As he has not done so, I conclude that he has no intent to continue with this application.
18In its submissions, the respondent requests that this application be dismissed as the applicant has not met his onus due to his failure to file written submissions and evidence.
19I agree. Accordingly, this application shall be dismissed.
ORDER
20As the applicant has failed to provide any submissions, it follows that he has not met his evidentiary burden regarding the issues in dispute.
21The application is dismissed.
Released: February 8, 2024
Brett Todd
Vice-Chair