Licence Appeal Tribunal
Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number: 23-003507/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:
Martin Wright Applicant
and
CAA Insurance Respondent
Order
Adjudicator: John Mazzilli
Appearances:
For the Applicant: Martin Wright, Applicant - Self-Represented (Did not attend)
For the Respondent: Jenelle Douglas, AB Adjustor Priyanka Monpara, Counsel
Court Reporter: Sage Jackson
Heard by Videoconference: May 6, 2024
Overview
1Martin Wright, the applicant, was involved in an automobile accident on July 6, 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, CAA Insurance, 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 videoconference hearing. The applicant did not attend the hearing and a reason was not provided for his absence. Despite the Tribunal's attempts to contact the applicant by e-mail and the respondent's counsel's attempts to contact the applicant by telephone he did not join the hearing. Further, the applicant did not attend the case conference that took place on October 27, 2023.
3In my view, it is appropriate for today's hearing to proceed in the absence of the applicant pursuant to S 7(1) of the Statutory Powers and Procedures Act. I am satisfied the applicant received notice of today's videoconference hearing on November 10, 2023, by the Tribunal. The Tribunal confirmed the applicant's contact information prior to the dissemination of the notice. After waiting 45 minutes the applicant did not attend despite many phone calls and e-mails. In accordance with the Tribunal's Rule 3.1 I find that proceeding with the hearing in the applicant's absence is an efficient and proportional resolution of this dispute.
Issues
4The issue(s) in dispute are:
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? Note: The parties agree the MIG limits have not been exhausted and the respondent advises that there is $1,106.73 remaining.
ii. Is the applicant entitled to a non-earner benefit of $185.00 per week from August 3, 2021, and ongoing?
iii. Is the applicant entitled to $4,114.00 for chiropractic services, proposed by Downsview Healthcare Inc. in a treatment plan/OCF-18 ("plan") submitted February 24, 2023, and denied March 7, 2023?
iv. Is the applicant entitled to the assessments proposed by Downsview Healthcare Inc, as follows:
a) $2,486.00 for an attendant care assessment in a treatment plan dated February 9, 2023, submitted February 10, 2023, and denied February 27, 2023?
b) $2,486.00 for an attendant care assessment follow-up in a treatment plan, submitted April 6, 2023, and denied April 21, 2023?
v. Is the applicant entitled to $2,046.00 for attendant care services, proposed by Attendants with Care, submitted May 16, 2023, and denied June 28, 2023?
vi. Is the applicant entitled to interest on any overdue payment of benefits?
Result
5The applicant did not provide any evidence to the Tribunal in support of his claim. As a result, he has not satisfied his burden to demonstrate entitlement to any of the benefits in dispute.
6Since no benefits are found to be owing, no interest is payable.
Analysis
The applicant's application is dismissed.
7The applicant failed to attend the hearing and failed to present evidence or make any submissions. As it is the applicant's burden to demonstrate entitlement to the benefits in dispute, and where the Tribunal was not presented with evidence from the applicant in support of his application, it follows that the applicant cannot be successful with his claim. I find that the applicant is not entitled to any of the benefits in dispute.
Order
8The applicant is not entitled to any of the benefits in dispute, as he failed to attend the hearing or present evidence to support his application.
9Since no benefits are found to be owing, no interest is payable.
10The application is dismissed.
Released: May 22, 2024
John Mazzilli Adjudicator