Aljeeloo v. Co-operators General Insurance Company, 2025 CanLII 122668

Citation: Aljeeloo v. Co-operators General Insurance Company, 2025 ONLAT 24-004167/AABS

Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number: 24-004167/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:

Liza Aljeeloo

Applicant

and

Co-operators General Insurance Company

Respondent

DECISION

ADJUDICATOR: Jeff Chatterton

APPEARANCES:

For the Applicant: No Submissions

For the Respondent: Simran Walia, Counsel

HEARD: In Writing

OVERVIEW

1Liza Aljeeloo, the applicant, was involved in an automobile accident on February 3, 2022, 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, Co-operators General 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:

1. 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?
2. Is the applicant entitled to $2,844.01 for Chiropractic Services proposed by Seksek Chirporactic Professional Corporation in a treatment plan/OCF-18 ('plan') dated June 2, 2022?
3. Is the applicant entitled to $1,317.50 for Chiropractic Services proposed by Seksek Chiropractic Professional Corporation in a plan dated June 2, 2022?
4. Is the applicant entitled to interest on any overdue payment of benefits?

RESULT

3The applicant is held to the Minor Injury Guideline. The applicant is not entitled to the treatment plans or interest.

4The application is dismissed.

ANALYSIS

5In the case conference report and order released on September 3, 2024, the Tribunal ordered the issues in dispute to proceed to a written hearing. At the case conference, the applicant was represented. On September 11, 2024, the Tribunal received a removal of representative form from the applicant’s former representative. This was acknowledged by the Tribunal on September 18, 2024.

6The Tribunal scheduled a written hearing for May 30, 2025.

7Notice of the written hearing was e-mailed to the respondent on September 18, 2024, using the contact information provided. The applicant’s notice was sent via Canada Post on October 4, 2024. Follow up queries from the Tribunal were sent to the applicant via email on May 8, 2025.

8The Tribunal has not received any communication from the applicant. No Notice of Motion has been filed with the Tribunal seeking to extend the applicant’s submission deadlines.

9The applicant’s initial submissions were due April 30, 2025. No submissions were received.

10The respondent’s submission were due May 14, 2025, which were received by the Tribunal.

11I find that the applicant had notice of the written hearing by way of Canada Post mail on October 4, 2024, and via follow up email on May 8, 2025.

12Section 7(2) of the Statutory Powers Procedures Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. S.222 (SPPA) provides that where a notice of a written hearing has been given to a party to a proceeding in accordance with the SPPA and the party neither acts under clause 6(4)(b) nor participates in the hearing in accordance with the notice, the tribunal may proceed without the party’s participation and the party is not entitled to any further notice in the proceeding

13In this case, the applicant has not indicated that there is a good reason not to hold a hearing pursuant to s. 6(4) (b) and has not participated. I am satisfied I have the authority to continue with the hearing pursuant to s. 7(2) of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act (SPPA).

14The applicant has the onus of demonstrating that they should be removed from the Minor Injury Guideline (“the MIG”), and that they are entitled to the medical treatments in dispute, as well as the award and interest.

15As no submissions or evidence have been filed with the Tribunal by the applicant, I find that the applicant has not demonstrated that she should be removed from the MIG. She is also not entitled to the medical treatments, nor interest in dispute.

ORDER

16The applicant is held to the MIG. She is not entitled to the treatment plans, nor the interest in dispute.

17The application is dismissed.