Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number: 23-008213/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:
Judith Grant
Applicant
and
Unifund Assurance Company
Respondent
DECISION
VICE-CHAIR: Tyler Moore
APPEARANCES:
For the Applicant: No Submissions
For the Respondent: Sivan Bune, Counsel
HEARD: In Writing
OVERVIEW
1Judith Grant, the applicant, was involved in an automobile accident on December 19, 2020, 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, Insurer, and applied to the Licence Appeal Tribunal - Automobile Accident Benefits Service (the “Tribunal”) for resolution of the dispute.
2In the case conference report and order released on January 29, 2024, the Tribunal ordered the dispute to proceed to a written hearing. The Tribunal scheduled a written hearing for September 13, 2024. Notice of this written hearing was e-mailed to the parties on February 8, 2024.
3The applicant’s initial submissions were due on August 14, 2024. The applicant has not filed any written submissions with the Tribunal, and there has been no motion made to extend the submission deadlines. The respondent filed its submissions on August 30, 2024.
4On August 30, September 5, September 9, September 13, and September 26, 2024, the Tribunal e-mailed the applicant indicating that no written submissions had been received, and to confirm if the file had been settled.
5No Notice of Withdrawal has been received by the Tribunal from the applicant.
ISSUES
6The 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 limit?
ii. Is the applicant entitled to income replacement benefits in the amount of $400.00 per week from December 26, 2020, to December 10, 2021?
iii. Is the applicant entitled to $3,736.96 for physiotherapy services proposed by Physiocare and Wellness Clinic in a treatment plan/OCF-18 submitted July 28, 2021, and denied on August 11, 2021?
iv. Is the applicant entitled to interest on any overdue payment of benefits?
ANALYSIS
7Since the applicant did not file a Notice of Withdrawal with the Tribunal, the parties’ file was not closed, and I will proceed with the written hearing pursuant to s. 7(2) of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act. I find that the applicant had notice of the written hearing.
8The applicant has the onus of demonstrating removal from the MIG. The applicant also has the onus of demonstrating entitlement to an income replacement benefit, physiotherapy services, and interest in dispute.
9As no submissions or evidence have been filed with the Tribunal by the applicant, I find that the applicant has not met the evidentiary burden to demonstrate entitlement to these substantive issues. I further find that no Notice of Motion has been filed seeking to extend the applicant’s submission deadlines.
ORDER
10As no submissions or evidence have been filed with the Tribunal by the applicant, I find that the applicant has not demonstrated removal from the MIG, nor has she demonstrated entitlement to an income replacement benefit, nor has she demonstrated entitlement to physiotherapy services, and interest in dispute.
11The application is dismissed.
Released: March 4, 2025
Tyler Moore
Vice-Chair