Hadisa v. Jevco Insurance Company, 2025 CanLII 108604

Licence Appeal Tribunal

Citation: Hadisa v. Jevco Insurance Company, 2025 ONLAT 24-009800/AABS

Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number: 24-009800/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:

Hadisa Hadisa

Applicant

and

Jevco Insurance Company

Respondent

DECISION

VICE-CHAIR: Tyler Moore

APPEARANCES:

For the Applicant: No Submissions

For the Respondent: Eluxmeenah Rishihesan, Counsel

HEARD: By Way of Written Submissions

OVERVIEW

1Hadisa Hadisa, the applicant, was involved in an automobile accident on August 29, 2023, 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, Jevco Insurance Company, and applied to the Licence Appeal Tribunal - Automobile Accident Benefits Service (the “Tribunal”) for resolution of the dispute.

ISSUES

2The 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 a non-earner benefit of $185.00 per week from September 28, 2023 to date and ongoing?

iii. Is the applicant entitled to $3,566.52 for chiropractic services, proposed by Physiomed Elgin Mills Inc. in a treatment plan/OCF-18 (“plan”) dated September 28, 2023?

iv. Is the applicant entitled to $100.25 ($1,300.00 less $1,199.75 approved) for physiotherapy services proposed by Physiomed Elgin Mills Inc. in a plan dated December 21, 2023?

v. Is the applicant entitled to $2,741.50 for physiotherapy services, proposed by Physiomed Elgin Mills Inc. in a plan dated March 26, 2024?

vi. Is the applicant entitled to $2,436.72 for translation services for counseling sessions, proposed by Downsview Healthcare Inc in a plan dated July 17, 2024?

vii. Is the applicant entitled to $4,204.32 for psychological services, proposed by Downsview Healthcare Inc. in a plan dated July 15, 2024?

viii. Is the applicant entitled to $2,486.00 for a psychological assessment proposed by Downsview Healthcare Inc. in a plan dated January 18, 2024?

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

ANALYSIS

3In the case conference report and order that was released on November 26, 2024, the Tribunal ordered that the dispute proceed to a written hearing. The Tribunal scheduled a written hearing on August 8, 2025. Notice of the written hearing was e-mailed to the parties on December 3, 2024, using the contact information provided.

4On March 4, 2025, the applicant’s current representative filed a Declaration of Representative with the Tribunal. On that same date, the Tribunal e-mailed a copy of the Notice of Written Hearing to the applicant’s current representative.

5The applicant’s initial submissions were due on July 9, 2025.

6The respondent filed its written submissions on July 25, 2025.

7The Tribunal has not received any further correspondence from the applicant. I find that no Notice of Motion has been filed with the Tribunal seeking to extend the applicant’s submission deadlines, and that the applicant has not filed a Notice of Withdrawal.

8Since the applicant did not file a Notice of Withdrawal with the Tribunal, the parties’ file was not closed, and I will proceed with the hearing pursuant to s. 7(2) of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act. I find that the applicant had notice of the written hearing by way of e-mail on December 3, 2024 and on March 4, 2025.

9The applicant has the onus of demonstrating that they should be removed from the MIG, and that they are entitled to a non-earner benefit and the medical benefits in dispute.

10As no submissions or evidence have been filed with the Tribunal by the applicant, I find that the applicant has not demonstrated that they should be removed from the MIG, and that they are entitled to a non-earner benefit, the medical benefits, and interest in dispute.

ORDER

11The applicant remains in the MIG and is not entitled to a non-earner benefit.

12The applicant is not entitled to the treatment plans in dispute.

13As no benefits are payable, the applicant is not entitled to interest or an award.

14The application is dismissed.