Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number: 25-000305/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:
Shanmugathasan Subramaniam
Applicant
and
CAA Insurance Company
Respondent
DECISION
VICE-CHAIR:
Neil Levine
APPEARANCES:
For the Applicant:
Shanmugathasan Subramanian, Applicant (did not attend)
For the Respondent:
Mitchell Barber, Counsel
Court Reporter:
Hanya Palumbo
HEARD: by Videoconference:
October 14, 2025
OVERVIEW
1The applicant was involved in an automobile accident on October 11, 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 certain benefits by the respondent and submitted an application to the Licence Appeal Tribunal - Automobile Accident Benefits Service (the “Tribunal”).
2The applicant did not attend a case conference on May 12, 2025. No reasons were provided for non-attendance.
3The applicant’s representative removed themselves as representative of record by way of a Removal of Representative Form on September 12, 2025, and a new Declaration of Representative was not received.
4The Tribunal attempted to contact the applicant numerous times via email, regular mail, and telephone. No response was received.
5A videoconference hearing was scheduled to take place on October 14, 15 and 16, 2025. The applicant was not in attendance. No explanation for non-attendance was provided.
ISSUES IN DISPUTE
6The issues to be decided in the hearing are:
Is the applicant entitled to a non-earner benefit of $185.00 per week from September 29, 2023 to date and ongoing?
Is the applicant entitled to attendant care benefits in the amount of $3,000.00 per month from October 11, 2021 to date and ongoing?
Is the applicant entitled to $1,940.80 for physiotherapy services, proposed by Scarborough Rehab Centre in a treatment plan/OCF-18 (“plan”) dated April 18, 2023?
Is the applicant entitled to $1,857.30 for physiotherapy services, proposed by Mackenzie Medical Rehab Centre in a plan dated December 19, 2022?
Is the applicant entitled to $2,188.76 for physiotherapy services, proposed by Mackenzie Medical Rehab Centre in plan dated October 17, 2022?
Is the applicant entitled to $2,984.07 for physiotherapy services, proposed by Mackenzie Medical Rehab Centre in a plan dated August 29, 2022?
Is the applicant entitled to $115.15 ($3,277.13 less $3,161.63 approved) for physiotherapy services, proposed by Mackenzie Medical Rehab Centre in a plan dated July 12, 2022?
Is the applicant entitled to housekeeping and home maintenance benefits in the amount of $100.00 per week from October 11, 2021 to date and ongoing?
Is the applicant entitled to $2,200.00 for a psychological assessment, proposed by Scarborough Rehab Centre in a treatment plan dated May 26, 2023?
Is the applicant entitled to $17,029.10 ($31,357.50 less $14,38.40 approved) for a catastrophic assessment, proposed by Spine Health Care Clinic in a treatment plan dated July 2, 2024?
Is the respondent liable to pay an award under s. 10 of Reg. 664 because it unreasonably withheld or delayed payments to the applicant?
Has the applicant acted unreasonably, frivolously, vexatiously, or in bad faith and therefore is the respondent entitled to costs (Rule 19)?
Is the applicant entitled to interest on any overdue payment of benefits?
Is the respondent entitled to costs?
RESULT
7As the applicant has not made submissions or tendered evidence in support of their claims before the Tribunal, I find that the applicant is not entitled to the benefits in dispute, an award, or interest.
8The respondent’s request for costs is denied.
PROCEDURAL ISSUE
Motion to Dismiss
9The applicant did not attend the start of the hearing at approximately 9:30 A.M. on the morning of September 8, 2025. The proceedings were paused for 30 minutes to give the applicant time to appear, and re-commenced again at 10:05 A.M. The Tribunal attempted to contact the applicant by phone without success. The applicant did not appear. The applicant has no representative on record.
10Due to the applicant’s non-attendance at the previous case conference and non-attendance at this hearing, a motion from the respondent to dismiss the application as abandoned under Common Rules of Practice & Procedure 2023 (the “Rules”) Rule 3.4(d) was heard verbally at the beginning of the hearing.
11The applicant made no submissions. Counsel for the respondent requested that the application be dismissed with prejudice, due to the applicant’s non-attendance at the previous case conference, non-attendance at this case conference, and failure to file appropriate submissions and productions for this hearing.
12I denied the motion to dismiss the application as abandoned, either with prejudice or without, so that the matter could move forward and allow the issues to be heard. I began the hearing at approximately 10:05 A.M. on October 14, 2025, without the applicant in attendance.
ANALYSIS
13Section 7(3) of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act (“SPPA”) states that, where notice of an electronic hearing (e.g. by videoconference) has been given to a party in a proceeding, the party does not attend the hearing, and the absent party has not requested a change of hearing format under s. 6(5)(c), the Tribunal may proceed in the absence of the party and the party is not entitled to any further notice in the proceeding. Further, Rule 3.7.1 of the Licence Appeal Tribunal Rules, 2023 (“Rules”) states that if a party, who has been given notice of a hearing in accordance with the SPPA does not attend their hearing within 30 minutes of the scheduled start time, the Tribunal may proceed with the hearing in the absence of that party and/or make any order it considers appropriate in the circumstances.
14Rule 4.4 of the Tribunal’s Rules requires an applicant to notify the Tribunal promptly of any change in contact information. Rules 6.1 and 6.2 further set out the process by which the Tribunal may serve a document on a party by regular mail and email.
15I am satisfied that the applicant had notice of the hearing. The Tribunal issued a Notice of Videoconference Hearing on May 23, 2025 by email to the parties. The applicant’s former counsel was included in the email. Following the withdrawal of the applicant’s counsel, the Tribunal asked the former counsel to provide the applicant’s current contact information. The former counsel provided this to the Tribunal. The same day, the Tribunal emailed the applicant to inquire if they would be seeking a new representative or proceeding self-represented. The Tribunal provided a copy of the Case Conference Report and Order (CCRO) dated May 12, 2025 and the May 23, 2025 Notice of Videoconference Hearing. On September 18, 2025, the Tribunal sent a letter to the applicant at their home address asking the applicant to confirm if they were proceeding self-represented or would be obtaining another representative. The Tribunal again provided a copy of the Case Conference Report and Order and Notice of Hearing.
16The respondent’s counsel spoke during the hearing of his firm’s numerous unsuccessful attempts to contact the applicant, including after the case conference that the applicant did not attend.
17As I was satisfied that the applicant had notice of the hearing, I relied on the discretion under s. 7(3) of the SPPA and Rule 3.7.1 to proceed with the hearing in the applicant’s absence.
18The applicant bears the burden of proof of establishing entitlement to the benefits in dispute at this hearing. As the applicant did not participate in or present any evidence at the hearing, I find that he has not proven entitlement to the benefits sought, nor interest nor an award.
Analysis of request for costs
19The respondent is not entitled to costs.
20At this hearing, the respondent requested costs be paid given that the applicant acted unreasonably and in bad faith in not appearing for the case conference or at the hearing, and did not provide any notice. No further submissions were made by the respondent on this issue.
21Rule 19.2 provides that a request may for costs may be made at any time before the decision or order is released.
22Rule 19.5 sets out the grounds for a finding of costs on any party.
23According to Rule 19.5, in deciding whether to order costs and the amount of costs, the Tribunal considers all relevant factors including the seriousness of the conduct, whether the conduct was in breach of a direction or order issued by the Tribunal, whether or not a party’s behaviour interfered with the Tribunal’s ability to carry out a fair, efficiency and effective process, prejudice to other parties, and the potential impact on individuals accessing the Tribunal system.
24The Tribunal must consider totality of parties conduct and whether it actually interfered with the Tribunal’s ability to carry out a fair, efficient and effective process; prejudice to the other parties, and access to other individuals accessing the Tribunal. In my view, the applicant’s actions did not prevent a fair, efficient and effective hearing. Choosing not to participate in the hearing process is not in itself conduct that threatens the orderly and civil resolution of the application. There must be a course of conduct that frustrates the Tribunal’s ability to carry out a fair and efficient hearing.
25Costs are not intended to compensate parties for the cost of bringing or defending claims or to punish a party. If the applicant chooses not to provide submissions or evidence when they have the onus to prove their case, then their claim will fail.
26In this case, the hearing was conducted, the applicant chose not to participate and thus their claim failed. I am not persuaded that the applicant’s failure to participate alone is grounds for an award of costs. Furthermore, a finding of costs against a self-represented applicant in these circumstances could have a detrimental impact on access to the Tribunal system.
27For these reasons, the respondent is not entitled to costs.
CONCLUSION
28Accordingly, I dismiss the applicant’s application in its entirety.
29The respondent’s claim for costs from the applicant is denied.
Released: November 5, 2025
Neil Levine
Vice-Chair