Mulholland v. The Dominion of Canada General Insurance Company, 2024 CanLII 97884

Licence Appeal Tribunal

Citation: Mulholland v. The Dominion of Canada General Insurance Company, 2024 ONLAT 23-009277/AABS

Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number: 23-009277/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:

Bradley Mulholland

Applicant

and

The Dominion of Canada General Insurance Company

Respondent

DECISION

VICE-CHAIR: Jeremy A. Roberts

APPEARANCES:

For the Applicant: Bradley Mulholland, Applicant (did not attend) Imtiaz Hosein, Counsel (did not attend)

For the Respondent: Mai Nguyen, Counsel (did not attend)

HEARD: by Videoconference: September 9, 2024

OVERVIEW

1Bradley Mulholland, the applicant, was involved in an automobile accident on October 18, 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, The Dominion of Canada General Insurance Company, and applied to the Licence Appeal Tribunal - Automobile Accident Benefits Service (the "Tribunal") for resolution of the dispute.

2The three-day hearing was scheduled to commence on September 9, 2024.

i. On September 5, 2024, prior to the commencement of the hearing, the parties emailed the Tribunal to notify it that they were entering into a tolling agreement and would not be proceeding with the hearing. The parties were advised that day that the applicant would be required to complete a Notice of Withdrawal form in order to cancel the scheduled event. A reminder email reiterating this requirement was sent to the parties at 9:10AM on September 9, 2024.

ii. On September 9, 2024, the day of the hearing, the parties did not attend the scheduled hearing set to commence at 9:30AM. No Notice of Withdrawal was submitted to the Tribunal.

iii. At 10:00AM after waiting 30 minutes I instructed the Case Management Officer (CMO) to contact the parties informing them that their participation was required at the hearing given that no Notice of Withdrawal had been submitted. This was sent to both parties.

iv. At 10:30AM after waiting one hour from the scheduled start time, I ended the hearing.

3While the Tribunal process is for parties to submit a Notice of Withdrawal when a matter is settled or withdrawn, this was not done here. It appears as though the Notice of Withdrawal was sent to the Respondent but not to the Tribunal. In considering a path forward, it would have been within my authority to proceed with a hearing. Without the benefit of the applicant's attendance or evidence, I could not have found the applicant entitled to the benefits in dispute.

4Despite this, I am accepting the email of September 5, 2024, as confirmation that the applicant was withdrawing the application.

5I would strongly encourage all parties to follow proper Tribunal processes in the future in order to ensure efficient use of the Tribunal's time.

RESULT

6The applicant withdrew the issues in dispute.

7The Tribunal's file is now closed.