Licence Appeal Tribunal
Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number: 23-000654/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:
Maleka Sajor-Russell
Applicant
and
Intact Insurance Company
Respondent
DECISION
VICE-CHAIR: Craig Mazerolle
APPEARANCES:
For the Applicant: No submissions
For the Respondent: No submissions
HEARD: By way of Written Submissions
OVERVIEW
1Maleka Sajor-Russell, the applicant, was involved in an automobile accident on May 21, 2017, 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, Intact Insurance Company, 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 September 13, 2023, the Tribunal ordered the dispute to proceed to a written hearing. The Tribunal scheduled a written hearing for May 17, 2024. Notice of this written hearing was e-mailed to the parties on September 21, 2023.
3The applicant's initial written submissions were due on April 17, 2024. Neither the applicant nor the respondent have filed any written submissions with the Tribunal, and there has been no motion made to extend the parties' submission deadlines.
4On March 26, 2024, and again on April 1, 2024, the applicant wrote to the Tribunal stating the parties' dispute had resolved, pending court approval. On April 2, 2024, the Tribunal wrote to the applicant to state that "if a Notice of Withdrawal is not received, the file will remain active."
5No further correspondence has been received from either party since April 1, 2024.
ISSUES
6The preliminary issues in dispute are:
i. Does the Tribunal have jurisdiction to deal with the issue of the Minor Injury Guideline set out at item no. 1 below, without a medical benefit in dispute? Can that claim be brought together with a claim for a non-earner benefit, ie. is the non-earner benefit sufficient?
ii. Is the applicant precluded from applying for benefits as a result of non-compliance with s. 44 and 55 of the Schedule?
7The substantive 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 a non-earner benefit of $185.00 per week from June 18, 2017 to May 29, 2019?
iii. Is the respondent liable to pay an award under s. 10 of Reg. 664 because it unreasonably withheld or delayed payments to the applicant?
iv. Is the applicant entitled to interest on any overdue payment of benefits?
ANALYSIS
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 written hearing.
9The applicant has the onus of demonstrating removal from the MIG. The applicant also has the onus of demonstrating entitlement to the non-earner benefit, award, and interest in dispute.
10As 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 demonstrated entitlement for these substantive issues. I further find that no Notice of Motion has been filed seeking to extend the parties' submission deadlines.
11In light of these findings, I can then conclude that the preliminary issues are moot.
ORDER
12As 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 the applicant demonstrated entitlement to a non-earner benefit, award, and interest in dispute.
13The preliminary issues are moot.
14The application is dismissed.
Released: January 20, 2025
Craig Mazerolle Vice-Chair