Licence Appeal Tribunal
Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number: 23-006679/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:
Rashaun Thomas
Applicant
and
Unifund Assurance Company
Respondent
DECISION
ADJUDICATOR: John Mazzilli
APPEARANCES:
For the Applicant: Rashaun Thomas, Applicant-Did not attend Ardian Haruni, Paralegal-Did not attend
For the Respondent: Darryl McInnis, ADR Consultant Nicholas Maida, Counsel
Heard by Videoconference: July 15, 2024
OVERVIEW
1Rashaun Thomas, the ("applicant"), was involved in an automobile accident on October 30, 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"), Unifund Assurance Company, 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. Neither the applicant or their counsel attended the hearing, and a reason was not provided for their absence. Despite the Tribunal's attempts to contact the applicant and their counsel by e-mail and telephone neither party joined the hearing. The applicant did send an email to the Tribunal with its intentions to withdraw the matter, however they did not file the proper notice of withdrawal with the Tribunal prior to the scheduled hearing.
3The respondent's counsel advised me that he had spoken to applicant's counsel a week prior to the hearing and advised him that he was going to be proceeding to the hearing. The respondent's counsel advised me that the applicant's counsel was on a family vacation overseas and would not be able to proceed and he did not ask the respondent's counsel for a consent to an adjournment.
4In my view, it is appropriate for today's hearing to proceed in the absence of the applicant and their counsel pursuant to s. 7(1) of the Statutory Powers and Procedure Act. I am satisfied that the applicant received notice of today's videoconference hearing on February 2, 2024, by the Tribunal. The Tribunal confirmed the applicant's contact information prior to the dissemination of the notice. After waiting 31 minutes neither the applicant nor their counsel attended despite many phone calls and e-mails. In accordance with the Tribunal's Rule 3.1 I find that proceeding with the hearing is an efficient and proportional resolution of this dispute.
ISSUES
5The issues in dispute are:
- Is the applicant entitled to an income replacement benefit in the amount of $230.75 per week from May 1, 2022, to date and on-going?
- Is the applicant entitled to $2,026.55.00 for Chiropractic Services, proposed by Mackenzie Med Rehab in a treatment plan/OCF-18 ("treatment plan") dated March 1, 2022?
- Is the applicant entitled to $3,795.50 for Chiropractic Services, proposed by Mackenzie Med Rehab in a treatment plan dated November 15, 2021?
- Is the applicant entitled to $1,417.70 for Chiropractic Services, proposed by Mackenzie Med Rehab in a treatment plan dated May 2, 2022?
- Is the applicant entitled to the assessments/treatment plans proposed by Princeton Hills Med, as follows: i. $2,480.00 for an Orthopaedic Assessment, in a treatment plan dated March 1, 2022? ii. $1,646.43 for Occupational Therapy Services, in a treatment plan dated May 26, 2022? iii. $1,318.37 for Other Assistive Devices, in a treatment plan dated May 26, 2022? iv. $4,489.86 for Psychological Services, in a treatment plan dated May 24, 2022? v. $1,256.65 for Occupational Therapy Services, in a treatment plan dated May 26, 2022?
- Is the applicant entitled to $41.00 for Medication, submitted on a claim form (OCF-6) dated June 29, 2022?
- Is the applicant entitled to interest on any overdue payment of benefits?
RESULT
6The applicant did not provide any evidence to the Tribunal in support of it's claim. As a result, it has not satisfied its burden to demonstrate entitlement to the benefits in dispute.
7The application is dismissed. Since no benefits are owing interest is not owing.
ANALYSIS
The applicant's application is dismissed
8The applicant failed to attend the hearing and failed to present evidence or make 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 its application, it follows that the applicant cannot be successful with its claim. I find that the applicant is not entitled to any of the benefits in dispute.
ORDER
9The applicant is not entitled to any of the benefits in dispute, as it failed to attend the hearing or present a case to support its application. As no benefits are payable interest is not owing.
10The application is dismissed. The Tribunal's file is now closed.
Released: August 9, 2024
John Mazzilli
Adjudicator