Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number: 23-002574/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:
Sahar Asadi
Applicant
and
Aviva General Insurance
Respondent
AMENDED DECISION
VICE-CHAIR:
Robert Maich
APPEARANCES:
For the Applicant:
Sahar Asadi, Applicant [Not Present]
For the Respondent:
Almeda Lucas, Aviva General Insurance, Litigation Specialist
Jean-Claude Rioux, Counsel
Heena Kapar Kapoor, Counsel
Heard by Videoconference:
May 13, 2024
OVERVIEW
1Sadar Asadi, the applicant, was involved in an automobile accident on August 21, 2019, 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, Insurer, and applied to the Licence Appeal Tribunal - Automobile Accident Benefits Service (the “Tribunal”) for resolution of the dispute.
2I find, it is 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. I am satisfied the applicant received notice of today’s videoconference hearing on November 24, 2023. The Tribunal confirmed the applicant’s contact information prior to the dissemination of the notice. This file is over 430 days old. In keeping with Rule 3.1 of the Tribunal’s Common Rules of Practice and Procedure, (“Common Rules”) I find that proceeding with the hearing is an efficient and proportional resolution of this dispute.
ISSUES
3The issue(s) in dispute is/are:
i. Is the applicant entitled to an income replacement benefit in the amount of $360.64 per week from August 28, 2019 to date and ongoing?
ii. Is the applicant entitled to $2,426.63 for physiotherapy services, proposed by Pro Life Wellness Centre Inc. in a treatment plan/OCF-18 (“plan”) dated February 21, 2021?
iii. Is the applicant entitled to interest on any overdue payment of benefits?
RESULT
4The application is dismissed.
ANALYSIS
5The applicant did not attend the hearing and no evidence was presented to the Tribunal for consideration. The Tribunal finds that in the absence of any evidence, the applicant did not discharge its onus to meet the burden of proof to establish an entitlement to the issues in dispute. Accordingly, the Tribunal dismissed the application.
ORDER
6The application is dismissed.
Released: May 29, 2024
__________________________
Robert Maich
Vice-Chair