Licence Appeal Tribunal
Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number: 24-000733/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:
Thivakar Saravanamuthu
Applicant
and
Intact Insurance Company
Respondent
DECISION
VICE-CHAIR:
Tyler Moore
APPEARANCES:
For the Applicant:
No Submissions
For the Respondent:
Theomarcus Giannou, Counsel
HEARD:
By Way of Written Submissions
OVERVIEW
1Thivakar Saravanamuthu, the applicant, was involved in an automobile accident on July 31, 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 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 an income replacement benefit in the amount of $400.00 per week from August 8, 2022 to October 18, 2022?
ii. Is the applicant entitled to $87.19 ($3,921.20 less $3,834.01 approved) for physiotherapy services, proposed by Aqua Wellness in a treatment plan/OCF-18 (“plan”) submitted November 30, 2022?
iii. Is the applicant entitled to $87.19 ($3,831.20 less $3,744.01 approved) for physiotherapy services, proposed by Aqua Wellness in a plan submitted January 6, 2023?
iv. Is the applicant entitled to $87.19 ($3,711.20 less $3,624.01 approved) for physiotherapy services, proposed by Aqua Wellness in a plan submitted February 24, 2023?
v. Is the applicant entitled to $87.19 ($3,501.20 less $3,414.01 approved) for physiotherapy services, proposed by Aqua Wellness in a plan submitted January 6, 2023?
vi. Is the applicant entitled to $87.19 ($3,411.20 less $3,414.01 approved) for a psychological assessment, proposed by Aqua Wellness in a plan submitted April 28, 2023?
vii. Is the applicant entitled to $619.80 ($2,460.00 less $1,840.20 approved) for a psychological assessment, proposed by Hydro Health Evaluations in a plan submitted September 13, 2023?
viii. Is the applicant entitled to $1,102.39 ($1,722.80 less $620.41 approved) for physiotherapy services, proposed by Aqua Wellness in a plan submitted October 31, 2023?
ix. Is the applicant entitled to $487.80 ($2,912.00 less $2,424.20 approved) for a psychological assessment, proposed by Hydro Health Evaluations in a plan submitted September 13, 2023?
x. Is the applicant entitled to $40.68 for a chronic pain assessment, proposed by Mark Goldstein MPC in a plan submitted January 19, 2024?
xi. Is the respondent liable to pay an award under s. 10 of Reg. 664 because it unreasonably withheld or delayed payments to the applicant?
xii. Is the applicant entitled to interest on any overdue payment of benefits?
ANALYSIS
3In the case conference report and order released on June 13, 2024, the Tribunal ordered the dispute to proceed to a written hearing. The Tribunal scheduled a written hearing for March 7, 2025. Notice of the written hearing was e-mailed to the parties on June 27, 2024 and again on July 29, 2024, using the contact information provided.
4On January 27, 2025, the Tribunal e-mailed the parties as a reminder that their submissions due date for the written hearing was approaching. The e-mail also requested that the applicant submit a Notice of Withdrawal to the Tribunal if the parties had reached a settlement.
5The Tribunal has not received any further correspondence from the applicant.
6The applicant’s initial submissions were due on February 5, 2025.
7The respondent filed its written submissions on February 21, 2025.
8Since 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 by way of e-mail on June 27 and July 29, 2024.
9The applicant has the onus of demonstrating entitlement to an income replacement benefit and the medical benefits and award in dispute.
10As no submission or evidence have been filed with the Tribunal by the applicant, I find that the applicant has not demonstrated that they are not entitled to an income replacement benefit, the medical benefits, award, and interest in dispute. I further find that no Notice of Motion has been filed seeking to extend the applicant’s submission deadlines.
ORDER
11The applicant is not entitled to an income replacement benefit or the medical benefits in dispute.
12As no benefits are owing, the applicant is not entitled to interest or an award.
13The application is dismissed.
Released: August 22, 2025
Tyler Moore
Vice-Chair