Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number: 22-012572/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:
Eneyda Duran
Applicant
and
Royal & Sun Alliance Insurance Company of Canada
Respondent
DECISION
VICE-CHAIR: Craig Mazerolle
APPEARANCES:
For the Applicant: No submissions
For the Respondent: No submissions
HEARD: In Writing
OVERVIEW
1Eneyda Duran, the applicant, was involved in an automobile accident on June 21, 2016, and sought benefits pursuant to the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule - Effective September 1, 2010 (the “Schedule”). The applicant was denied benefits by the respondent, Royal & Sun Alliance Insurance Company of Canada, and applied to the Licence Appeal Tribunal - Automobile Accident Benefits Service (the “Tribunal”) for resolution of the dispute.
ISSUES
2The issues in dispute are:
i. Is the applicant entitled to $1,982.37 ($4,202.11 less $2,219.74 approved) for Psychological Services, proposed by Dr. Jeremy Frank and Associates in a treatment plan/OCF-18 dated April 24, 2021?
ii. Is the respondent liable to pay an award under s. 10 of O. 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?
ANALYSIS
3The applicant has the onus of demonstrating entitlement to the medical benefit, award, and interest in dispute.
4In the case conference report and order released on July 25, 2023, the Tribunal ordered the dispute to proceed to a written hearing.
5The Tribunal scheduled a written hearing for April 12, 2024. Notice of this written hearing was e-mailed to the parties on July 27, 2023.
6The applicant’s initial written submissions were due on March 13, 2024. The applicant has not filed any written submissions, and there has been no Notice of Motion made seeking to extend the applicant’s initial submissions deadline.
7The respondent has not filed any submissions for this written hearing.
8As no submissions or evidence have been filed with the Tribunal by the applicant, I find that the applicant has not met the evidentiary burden. I further find that no Notice of Motion has been filed seeking to extend the applicant’s initial submissions deadline.
ORDER
9As no submissions or evidence have been filed with the Tribunal by the applicant, I find that the applicant has not demonstrated entitlement to the medical benefit, award, and interest in dispute.
10The application is dismissed.
Released: October 25, 2024
Craig Mazerolle
Vice-Chair