Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number: 23-003783/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:
Wesley Green
Applicant
and
Northbridge General Insurance Company
Respondent
DECISION
VICE-CHAIR: Robert Maich
APPEARANCES:
For the Applicant: Wesley Green, Applicant [Not Present]
For the Respondent: Tara Anderson, Claims Representative Northbridge General Insurance Company Jennifer Singh, Counsel
Heard by Videoconference: June 10, 2024
OVERVIEW
1Wesley Green, the applicant, was involved in an automobile accident on November 20, 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, Northbridge General Insurance Company, and applied to the Licence Appeal Tribunal - Automobile Accident Benefits Service (the "Tribunal") for resolution of the dispute.
2The applicant did not attend the hearing as scheduled. The applicant did not attend the case conference of November 9, 2023, and its counsel could not obtain instructions. The applicant's counsel was subsequently removed from the record on April 4, 2024. I am satisfied the applicant received proper notice of removal of representative, notice of this hearing, and the notice of motion at a scheduled event. The hearing proceeded under the authority of s. 7 of the SPPA.
PRELIMINARY ISSUES
3The respondent brought a motion to be heard at a scheduled event for an order dismissing the application as abandoned. The motion was heard prior to the commencement of the hearing. The respondent made its submissions, unanswered by the absent applicant. Upon completion of the respondent's submissions, I reserved my decision.
ISSUES
4The issues in dispute are:
i. Is the applicant entitled to an income replacement benefit in the amount of $400.00 per week from August 25, 2021 to date and on-going?
ii. Is the applicant entitled to interest on any overdue payment of benefits?
RESULT
5I find the applicant did not discharge its onus and the application is dismissed.
6It was not necessary to rule on the motion to be heard at a scheduled event as the application is dismissed.
PROCEDURAL ISSUES AND ANALYSIS
7The applicant did not attend the hearing or the motion to be heard at a scheduled event.
8I am satisfied the applicant had proper notice of the hearing and motion to be heard at a scheduled event.
9The motion to be heard at a scheduled event proceeded, followed by the substantive issues hearing proceedings.
10The onus of proving entitlement to the benefits in dispute is on the applicant. The absent applicant made no submissions on the motion heard at the scheduled event, and presented no evidence on the substantive issues.
11I find the applicant did not discharge its onus on the substantive issues as no evidence was submitted.
12I find it was not necessary to rule on the motion heard at a scheduled event as the application is dismissed.
ORDER
13The application herein is dismissed.
Released: June 20, 2024
Robert Maich Vice-Chair