Licence Appeal Tribunal
Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number: 24-009851/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:
Louria Mitchell
Applicant
and
Intact Insurance Company
Respondent
DECISION
ADJUDICATOR: Timothy Porter
APPEARANCES:
For the Applicant: Louria Mitchell, Applicant (did not attend)
For the Respondent: Nisaa Khan, Counsel
HEARD: by Videoconference: May 12, 2025
OVERVIEW
1Louria Mitchell, the applicant, was involved in an automobile accident on May 2, 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, Intact Insurance, and applied to the Licence Appeal Tribunal - Automobile Accident Benefits Service (the “Tribunal”) for resolution of the dispute.
2The applicant did not attend the hearing. She also did not attend the case conference of November 14, 2024, has not been in contact with the Tribunal or the respondent since that date and is, as of February 21, 2025, unrepresented.
ISSUES
3The issues in dispute are:
i. Is the applicant entitled to an income replacement benefit in the amount of $255.68 per week from February 19, 2023, to date and ongoing?
ii. Is the applicant entitled to a medical benefit in the amount of $448.26 ($2,597.87 less $2,149.61 approved) for psychological services, proposed by Medex Assessment Inc. in a plan submitted on March 26, 2022, and partially denied on October 27, 2022?
iii. Is the applicant entitled to an assessment in the amount of $3,049.87 for a Neurological Assessment, proposed by Medex Assessment Inc. in a plan submitted on July 12, 2024, and denied on July 24, 2024?
iv. Is the applicant entitled to a medical benefit in the amount of $5,738.22 for psychological services, proposed by Medex Assessment Inc. in a plan submitted on July 9, 2024, and denied on July 10, 2024?
v. Is the applicant entitled to interest on any overdue payment of benefits?
RESULT
4As the applicant has made no submissions and tendered no evidence in support of her claims, I find that the applicant has not met her onus to prove entitlement to the benefits claimed. I therefore dismiss the application.
ANALYSIS
5Section 7(3) of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. S.22 (“SPPA”) states that, if notice of an electronic hearing has been given to a party to a proceeding in accordance with the SPPA and the party does not attend at the hearing, the tribunal may proceed in the absence of the party and the party is not entitled to any further notice of the proceeding.
6The applicant did not attend the hearing. She also did not attend the case conference of November 14, 2024.
7A summary of events leading up to the hearing is set out below:
i. The applicant did not attend the case conference November 14, 2024. The applicant has not provided any reason before or after the scheduled event to explain her non-attendance. The matter was set down for a 3-day videoconference hearing. The Case Conference Report and Order was sent directly to the applicant’s email address November 19, 2024.
ii. The Notice of Hearing was emailed directly to the applicant on December 16, 2024, noting the hearing date as May 12, 2025, and the start time as 9:30 AM.
iii. The applicant’s representative provided notice to the Tribunal that they were removing themselves as representatives on February 21, 2025.
iv. The Tribunal’s Case Management Officer (CMO) reached out to the applicant on March 3, 2025, to inquire whether the applicant would be self-representing or retaining new counsel. The email communication also included the “Notice of Video Conference Hearing”. No response was received. The notice of hearing identified the hearing date as May 12, 2025, and the start time of 9:30 AM.
v. On March 28, 2025, the respondent emailed the applicant to advise that they would not be calling any witnesses at the upcoming hearing.
vi. On April 3, 2025, the CMO emailed the applicant reminding her of the scheduled videoconference hearing and indicating that they had not heard back from the applicant.
vii. On April 22, 2025, the respondent emailed and couriered their final submissions for the hearing to the applicant. At the hearing, the respondent submitted that they have attempted to call, email and courier the applicant with no response as of the hearing date.
viii. On April 29, 2025, the CMO emailed the applicant to request a response to the inquiry about the status of the hearing.
8At the beginning of the hearing on May 12, 2025, at 9:30 AM, the applicant was not in attendance. I ordered a 30-minute recess so that the Tribunal could attempt to reach the applicant. The CMO placed a phone call to the applicant, but the applicant’s phone was no longer in service. The CMO also emailed the applicant and had received no response by 10:00 AM.
9I am satisfied that the applicant had notice of the hearing. As set out above, the notice was sent to the applicant’s email provided on the application. Although I acknowledge that the applicant no longer had a representative as of February 21, 2025, I find that the Tribunal and the respondent both attempted to contact the applicant directly. Further, Rule 4.4 of the Licence Appeal Tribunal Rules, 2023 (Rules) requires a party to notify the Tribunal and the other parties, as soon as possible, of any change in contact information.
10Rules 3.7 and 3.7.1 require the applicant to attend the hearing and for the Tribunal to wait 30 minutes from the scheduled start of the hearing. Therefore, after being satisfied that the applicant was provided with notice of the hearing and after waiting for more than 30 minutes during which time the CMO tried unsuccessfully to contact the applicant, I proceeded with the hearing in the applicant’s absence.
11Pursuant to section 7(3) of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act (SPPA), given that I was satisfied that the applicant had proper notice of the date and time for the hearing, I proceeded with the scheduled hearing at 10:10 AM.
12After hearing submissions from the respondent, approximately one hour had passed from the scheduled start of the hearing. The applicant did not attend.
13At 10:25 AM the hearing concluded.
14At approximately 10:30 AM the CMO advised me that the applicant had received the email and had called the Tribunal to express her interest in attending the hearing. However, by the time of the applicant’s call, the hearing had concluded. With this information, I am further satisfied that the applicant had received the unanswered communications that began in November of 2024.
15I find that the applicant has not met her onus of demonstrating that she is entitled to the benefits in dispute. By not attending the hearing and not providing any submissions or evidence, I find that the applicant has not met her burden.
16As the applicant made no submissions and tendered no evidence, I find that the applicant is not entitled to the benefits claimed.
ORDER
17As the applicant made not submissions and tendered no evidence in support of her claims before the Tribunal, the applicant has not met her onus to prove entitlement to the benefits claimed.
18The application is dismissed.
Released: June 2, 2025
Timothy Porter
Adjudicator