Citation: Rengaraj v. Unifund Assurance Company, 2025 ONLAT 23-012412/AABS

Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number: 23-012412/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:

Baskar Rengaraj

Applicant

and

Unifund Assurance Company

Respondent

DECISION

VICE-CHAIR: Tyler Moore

APPEARANCES:

For the Applicant: No Submissions

For the Respondent: Thomas Petrella, Counsel

HEARD: By Way of Written Submissions

OVERVIEW

1Baskar Rengaraj, the applicant, was involved in an automobile accident on January 26, 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, Unifund Assurance Company, 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. 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?

ii. Is the applicant entitle to $3,290.00 for physiotherapy services, proposed by Focus Physiotherapy Inc. in a treatment plan/OCF-18 (“plan”) dated December 19, 2022?

iii. Is the applicant entitled to interest on any overdue payment of benefits?

ANALYSIS

3In the case conference report and order released on April 26, 2024, the Tribunal ordered the dispute to proceed to a written hearing. The Tribunal scheduled a written hearing for January 3, 2025. Notice of the written hearing was e-mailed to the parties on May 2, 2024.

4The applicant’s initial submissions were due on December 4, 2024.

5The respondent filed its written submissions on December 20, 2024.

6The Tribunal has not received any further correspondence from the applicant.

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 that he is entitled to the medical benefit in dispute.

9As 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 demonstrate that he should be removed from the MIG and that he is entitled to the benefit 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 MIG, and that he is entitled to the medical benefit and interest in dispute.

11The application is dismissed.