Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number: 24-005315/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:
Janessa Callum
Applicant
and
Belair Insurance Company Inc.
Respondent
DECISION
ADJUDICATOR: Harry Adamidis
APPEARANCES:
For the Applicant: Janessa Callum, Applicant (absent)
For the Respondent: Murleen McLean, Counsel
Heard by Videoconference: April 8, 2025
OVERVIEW
1Janessa Callum, the applicant, was involved in an automobile accident on August 20, 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, Belair Insurance Company Inc., Insurer, 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. Is the applicant entitled to an income replacement benefit in the amount of $400.00 per week from August 20, 2022 to date and ongoing?
ii. Is the applicant entitled to $1,141.75 ($2,317.75 less $1,176.00 approved) for physiotherapy services, proposed by Focus Physiotherapy in a treatment plan/OCF-18 (“plan”) submitted December 2, 2022?
iii. Is the applicant entitled to $554.29 ($2,200.00 less $1,645.71 approved) for a psychological assessment, proposed by Verity Medical Assessments in a plan submitted October 6, 2022?
iv. Is the respondent liable to pay an award under s. 10 of Reg. 664 because it unreasonably withheld or delayed payments to the applicant?
v. Is the applicant entitled to interest on any overdue payment of benefits?
RESULT
3This application is dismissed.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
4On September 13, 2024, the Tribunal issued a Notice of Videoconference Hearing for a hearing to take place on April 8, 2025 at 9:30AM.
5The applicant’s former counsel filed a Removal of Representative form on March 5, 2025. The Tribunal subsequently contacted the applicant by email and served the Notice of Videoconference Hearing on March 6, 2025.
6The applicant did not file a brief prior to the hearing. She also did not respond to the Tribunal’s hearing status update requests that were sent to her by email on March 26, 2025. The Zoom link to the hearing and a Zoom user guide was emailed to the applicant on March 28, 2025.
7The applicant did not appear at the start of the hearing. Tribunal staff then called her and left a message but were unable to reach her in-person.
8The hearing resumed at 10:05AM. The respondent argued that the matter should proceed in the absence of the applicant because meaningful efforts had been made to notify her of the hearing and did not appear.
9Rule 3.7.1(a) of the Licence Appeal Tribunal Rules requires the Tribunal to consider the reasons for non-attendance, if any, and may proceed with the hearing in the absence of a party. The Notice of Hearing was served on the applicant 33 calendar days before the hearing. In my view, this constitutes reasonable notice of the hearing. Since then, the applicant did not communicate with the Tribunal, did not appear for her hearing, nor did she give an explanation for not appearing.
10As such, I find that the hearing should proceed in her absence because she had reasonable notice and provided no reasons for her absence.
ANALYSIS
11The burden of proof rests with the applicant to establish her case. The applicant has filed no evidence and made no submissions. There is no basis upon which to grant this application. This application is dismissed.
ORDER
12I order that the application be dismissed.
Released: May 6, 2025
__________________________
Harry Adamidis
Adjudicator