Beckford v. Intact Insurance Company, 2025 CanLII 49176

Citation: Beckford v. Intact Insurance Company, 2025 ONLAT 23-007715/AABS

Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number: 23-007715/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:

Alloy Beckford

Applicant

and

Intact Insurance Company

Respondent

DECISION

VICE-CHAIR: Tyler Moore

APPEARANCES:

For the Applicant: No Submissions

For the Respondent: Gauri Gogna, Counsel

HEARD: By Way Of Written Submissions

OVERVIEW

1Alloy Beckford, the applicant, was involved in an automobile accident on January 2, 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 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 April 9, 2024, the Tribunal ordered the dispute to proceed to a written hearing. The Tribunal scheduled a written hearing for December 6, 2024. Notice of the written hearing was e-mailed to the parties on April 11, 2024.

3The applicant’s initial submissions were due on November 6, 2024. On November 15, 2024, the Tribunal e-mailed the parties because the applicant’s written submissions had not been received. There was no response to the Tribunal’s e-mail.

4The respondent filed its written submissions on November 19, 2024.

5No further correspondence has been received from the parties and the Tribunal has not received a Notice of Withdrawal.

ISSUES

6The 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 $1,900.48 for chiropractic services, proposed by Attiva Clinics in a treatment plan/OCF-18 (“plan”) dated June 22, 2021?
3. Is the applicant entitled to the following assessments proposed by Pivotal Assessment Centre, as follows: i. $5,951.87 for a Psychological Assessment, in a plan dated February 4, 2022; and ii. $2,200.00 for a Psychological Assessment, in a plan dated April 25, 2022?
4. 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 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 that he should be removed from the MIG and entitlement to the medical benefits in dispute.

9As no submissions or evidence have been filed with the Tribunal by the applicant, I find that the applicant has not demonstrated that he should be removed from the MIG and entitlement to the medical benefits in dispute. 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 that he should be removed from the MIG, and entitlement to the medical benefits and interest in dispute.

11The application is dismissed.