Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number: 22-013361/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:
Robyrt Regan
Applicant
and
Unifund Assurance Company
Respondent
DECISION
ADJUDICATOR:
Michael Beauchesne
APPEARANCES:
For the Applicant:
Robyrt Regan, Applicant
For the Respondent:
Hue Nguyen, Counsel
HEARD:
By way of written submissions
OVERVIEW
1Robyrt Regan (the "applicant") was involved in an automobile accident on August 28, 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 benefits by Unifund Insurance Company (the "respondent") and applied to the Licence Appeal Tribunal—Automobile Accident Benefits Service (the "Tribunal") for resolution of the dispute.
RESULT
2The applicant has withdrawn his appeal and the Tribunal's file is closed.
ISSUES IN DISPUTE
3The issues in dispute are:
a. Is the applicant entitled to physiotherapy, massage therapy, and chiropractic treatment in the amount of $2,221.90, proposed by Healthy Body Chiropractic in a treatment plan ("OCF-18") submitted December 21, 2023?
b. Is the applicant entitled to physiotherapy treatment in the amount of $2,693.75, proposed by iScope Concussion and Pain Centres in an OCF-18 plan submitted February 8, 2023?
c. Is the applicant entitled to attendant care benefits in the amount of $2,734.80 per month from August 28, 2021 to date and ongoing?
d. Is the respondent liable to pay an award under section 10 of Regulation 664 because it unreasonably withheld or delayed payments to the applicant?
e. Is the applicant entitled to interest on any overdue payment of benefits?
PROCEDURAL ISSUES
The applicant seeks an adjournment, or alternately seeks leave to withdraw his application
4I find the applicant has withdrawn his application in this matter.
5LAT Rule 16 of the Licence Appeal Tribunal Rules ("LAT Rules") pertains to adjournments, which, per LAT Rule 24.8, apply to adjournment requests owing to the withdrawal of a representative. LAT Rule 16.1 provides that adjournment requests must be made using the form provided on the Tribunal's website and served on the other parties prior to being filed with the Tribunal. LAT Rule 16.1 goes on to specify that a failure to provide a completed form and supporting submissions and evidence will result in the adjournment request not being considered by the Tribunal.
6The applicant submits that his medical condition, injury particulars, and degree of cognitive impairment make it impossible for him to properly represent himself and necessitate legal representation. The applicant explains that his representative of record earlier removed himself from the case and refuses to relinquish his file. The applicant goes on to say that he has not since been able to retain counsel for his matter. The applicant provides a list of 13 law firms he has canvassed since June 27, 2024, to no avail. He relies on rejection letters he received from several of these firms to show he has been diligent about retaining new counsel.
7The applicant adds that, in the alternative, he seeks leave to withdraw his case without prejudice to re-commence his application once he has retained replacement counsel.
8The respondent requests that the application be dismissed because the applicant has failed to lead arguments or evidence to support his case.
9I find the applicant's adjournment request is improper and cannot be considered. LAT Rule 16.1 obligates the parties to file their adjournment requests on the prescribed form. The applicant failed to do so.
10But even if I did consider the applicant's request, I would not grant an adjournment in this case after considering the factors at LAT Rule 16.3. This case is now more than two years old and has a procedural history that includes two previously granted adjournment requests for the same reason offered by the applicant in his written submissions for this hearing. The most recent motion order was released in June 2024, and was peremptory on the applicant to proceed on August 16, 2024. Given that almost two months elapsed between that adjournment and the re-scheduled hearing date, the timeliness of the applicant's present adjournment request, which is not on consent, is an aggravating factor.
11The applicant does not require the leave of the Tribunal, or the other party for that matter, to withdraw his appeal. Any prejudice to the applicant on account of withdrawing his application appears to be minimal; the accident occurred in August of 2021, so there is approximately 16 months left in the applicant's claim period at the time of this decision. I was unable to consider the implications of section 56 of the Schedule—which prescribes a two-year limitation period on accident benefit disputes—as it applies to the withdrawal of the applicant's claim because neither party's submissions led evidence (i.e., denial notices) to confirm when the disputed benefits were denied.
12Given that the applicant has failed to properly file his adjournment request and conveyed that he seeks to withdraw his application in the alternate (i.e., if an adjournment is not granted), I find the applicant has withdrawn his application.
ORDER
13The applicant has withdrawn his appeal. I order that the Tribunal's file be closed.
Released: May 7, 2025
Michael Beauchesne
Adjudicator```