Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number: 24-011834/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:
Janusz Kudaszewicz
Applicant
and
The Personal Insurance Company
Respondent
DECISION
ADJUDICATOR:
Harry Adamidis
APPEARANCES:
For the Applicant:
Ryan O’Connor, Counsel
For the Respondent:
Andrew Cottreau, Counsel
HEARD: by Videoconference:
July 16, 2025
OVERVIEW
1Janusz Kudaszewicz, the applicant, was involved in an automobile accident on December 30, 2020, 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, The Personal Insurance 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. Is the applicant entitled to a non-earner benefit of $185.00 per week from January 20, 2021, to ongoing?
ii. Is the respondent liable to pay an award under s. 10 of Reg. 664 because it unreasonably withheld or delayed payments to the applicant?
iii. Is the applicant entitled to interest on any overdue payment of benefits?
RESULT
3This application is dismissed.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
4A case conference order was issued on January 24, 2025 which required the parties to file their witness list and document brief no later than 21 days before the hearing.
5A Notice of Videoconference Hearing was issued on February 14, 2025. The scheduled date for the hearing is July 16, 2025.
6The applicant did not file a brief, nor a witness list.
7On the evening of July 14, 2025, the applicant advised the Tribunal by email that he would be seeking an adjournment at the hearing.
8On July 16, 2025, the day of the hearing, applicant’s counsel appeared but the applicant himself was absent.
ADJOURNMENT REQUEST
9The applicant’s request for an adjournment was not allowed.
10Oral adjournment requests at adjudicative events are governed by Rule 16.2 of the Licence Appeal Tribunal Rules, 2023 (the Rules):
16.2 ORAL ADJOURNMENTS REQUESTS
Despite Rule 16.1, a request for an adjournment may be made orally before a Member at the adjudicative event.
Oral requests will only be allowed in compelling circumstances where the party did not and could not have known of the circumstances giving rise to the adjournment request prior to the event.
The Tribunal may also direct that the request for an adjournment be heard at the event.
11The applicant filed an affidavit of M. Joseph Zayouna, lawyer, dated July 15, 2025. He states that Jacek Maludzinski, a licenced paralegal with his office and the Applicant’s representative in this matter, is suffering from severe illness and has been recently hospitalised. Mr. Zayouna further states that due to the sudden and serious nature of Mr. Maludzinski’s illness, his office requires time to arrange for the reassignment of this matter and to ensure sufficient time to prepare for the hearing.
12Attached to this affidavit is an exhibit. It is an email purportedly from Mr. Maludzinski to respondent’s counsel. The email states the following:
…please call our office and ask for Mr. Joseph Zayouna. The arbitration will not go ahead. I am in hospital. Last several weeks I did not have access to my email and/or voice mail. I have been diagnosed with a very serious illness and been in and out of hospital…
13At the hearing, applicant’s counsel indicated that his office learned of Mr. Maludzinski’s hospitalization after being contacted by respondent’s counsel who provided the above email to applicant’s counsel.
14Applicant’s counsel also indicated that there is no other information or evidence on Mr. Maludzinski’s hospitalization.
15The applicant submits that he meets the requirements of Rule 16.2 as the sudden hospitalization of Mr. Maludzinski satisfies the compelling circumstances requirement needed to allow for an oral adjournment request to be made. He also argues that the applicant, Mr. Kudaszewicz himself, could not have known that his counsel would have been hospitalized and weight should be given to this point as the applicant himself is the party referred to in Rule 16.2. The applicant further submits that the circumstances being presented to the Tribunal are compelling enough to be accepted at face value and there is no need to understand about the events prior to July 10, 2025 which lead to the adjournment request.
16The respondent consents to the adjournment request.
17I find there is an insufficient basis to allow an oral adjournment request to be made at the hearing.
18The applicant made an oral request for the adjournment because his legal representative, Mr. Maludzinski, was recently hospitalized. However, the only evidence supporting this request is a cryptic, unsigned email from an email address which is obscured. More significantly, this email is missing crucial details. For example, no information is provided on when the author of the email was hospitalized. Thus, there is no way to tell if this is a recent hospitalization. The author of the email states that they have been seriously ill for several weeks and that they have had no access to voicemail or email, but does not explain why they had no means of communication. In my view, this information is not sufficient enough to explain why an earlier written adjournment request was not made under Rule 16.1.
19The applicant seems to suggest that Rule 16.2 exclusively applies to the applicant himself and that the actions of counsel are irrelevant.
20I disagree.
21Mr. Maludzinski is authorized to represent the applicant. His actions are on behalf of his client, the applicant. There is no evidence of a loss of confidence between Mr. Maludzinski and the applicant such that the former no longer represents the latter. He is a licenced paralegal and there is a reasonable expectation that he will undertake his responsibility to comply and work within the Rules in matters before the Tribunal, including adjournment requests. Where he is incapable of performing his duties on behalf of his client, it is reasonable to expect Mr. Maludzinski to make arrangements for his substitution. In terms of whether he could have made arrangements, I have already identified my concerns about the email that is supposedly from Mr. Maludzinski. I find the evidence before me to be unpersuasive in its attempt to support the propositions put forward by the applicant.
22In any event, there is no evidence on what the applicant himself knew or did not know about the circumstances leading up to the adjournment request, and therefore, this point is moot.
23The applicant argues that Mr. Maludzinski’s hospitalization in itself is a compelling circumstance and that the previous history leading up to the adjournment request is irrelevant.
24Again, I disagree. Rule 16.2 requires the applicant to establish that an adjournment could not be made prior to the hearing. The applicant cannot explain why no brief or witness list was filed with the Tribunal. The applicant is also unable to say when Mr. Maludzinski was hospitalized. In light of these unanswered questions, it is not possible to meaningfully understand what led to an oral adjournment request. Consequently, I find that the hospitalization of Mr. Maludzinski alone does not give enough context to establish that an adjournment request could not have been made prior to the hearing.
25For all these reasons, the applicant’s request for to allow an oral adjournment request is denied.
ANALYSIS
26The applicant has the burden of proof to establish her case. She did not file any evidence and made no submissions.
27There is no basis upon which to grant this application. This application is dismissed.
ORDER
28This application is dismissed.
Released: August 15, 2025
Harry Adamidis
Adjudicator