Huguette Nehme-Rahme v. Intact Insurance Company, 2024 CanLII 97880

Citation: Rahme v. Intact Insurance Company, 2024 ONLAT 22-008977/AABS

Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number: 22-008977/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:

Huguette Nehme-Rahme

Applicant

and

Intact Insurance Company

Respondent

DECISION

VICE-CHAIR: Craig Mazerolle

APPEARANCES:

For the Applicant: No submissions

For the Respondent: Christopher Marshall, Counsel

HEARD: In Writing

OVERVIEW

1Huguette Nehme-Rahme, the applicant, was involved in an automobile accident on October 26, 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, Intact Insurance Company, and applied to the Licence Appeal Tribunal - Automobile Accident Benefits Service (the “Tribunal”) for resolution of the dispute.

2In a case conference report and order released on June 14, 2023, the Tribunal ordered the dispute to proceed to a written hearing. The Tribunal scheduled a written hearing for March 8, 2024, with the Notice of Written Hearing e-mailed to the parties on June 22, 2023.

3The applicant’s initial submissions were due on February 7, 2024. The applicant has not provided any written submissions to the Tribunal. There has also been no Notice of Motion filed by the applicant seeking to extend the initial submissions deadline.

4The respondent filed submissions with the Tribunal (dated February 21, 2024), stating it has not received submissions from the applicant. The respondent is seeking a dismissal of the application.

ISSUES

5As listed in the case conference report and order, the issues 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 (“MIG”) limit?

ii. Is the applicant entitled to $1,467.00 for occupational therapy services, proposed by Shannon McGareth OT in a treatment plan/OCF-18 (“plan”) dated January 22, 2020?

iii. Is the applicant entitled to $99.75 ($1,278.41 less $1,178.66 approved) for physiotherapy services, proposed by Mohamad El-Asswad PT of Pro Physio & Sports Medicine Centre Merrivale in a treatment plan dated January 24, 2020?

iv. Is the applicant entitled to interest on any overdue payment of benefits?

6The case conference report and order indicated that an award request was withdrawn as an issue in dispute.

ANALYSIS

7Section 7(2) of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. S.22 states that, if notice of a written hearing has been given to a party who does not then participate in the hearing in accordance with the notice, the Tribunal may proceed with the hearing in the absence of that party’s participation. I am satisfied that the parties received notice of the written hearing, so I shall proceed without submissions from the applicant.

8The applicant has the onus of demonstrating removal from the MIG, as well as entitlement to the medical benefits and interest in dispute. By not filing any submissions or evidence with the Tribunal, I find that the applicant has not met this burden.

9I further find that the applicant did not file a Notice of Motion requesting an extension of the initial submission deadline.

ORDER

10As the applicant has made no submissions and tendered no evidence in support of the claims before the Tribunal, the applicant has not demonstrated removal from the MIG, and the applicant has not demonstrated entitlement to the medical benefits and interest in dispute.

11The application is dismissed.