Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number: 24-009549/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:
Rudram Gheewala
Applicant
and
TD General Insurance Company
Respondent
DECISION
ADJUDICATOR: Timothy Porter
APPEARANCES:
For the Applicant: Rudram Gheewala, Applicant (Did not attend)
For the Respondent: Esinam Ayesu-Attah, Counsel Aljosa Alilovic, Counsel
HEARD: by Videoconference: September 8, 2025
OVERVIEW
1Rudram Gheewala, the applicant, was involved in an automobile accident on August 18, 2023, 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, TD Insurance, 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 $184.69 per week from July 6, 2023, to date and ongoing?
ii. Is the applicant entitled to $70 ($120 less $50 approved) for other assisted devices, proposed by Physio Art Rehabilitation in a treatment plan/OCF-18 (“plan”) submitted December 11, 2023?
iii. Is the applicant entitled to $4,190.00 for physiotherapy services, proposed by Physio Art Rehabilitation in a plan submitted August 30, 2024?
iv. Is the respondent liable to pay an award under s. 10 of Reg. 664 because it unreasonably withheld or delayed payments to the applicant?
v. Is the applicant entitled to interest on any overdue payment of benefits?
RESULT
3The applicant is not entitled to the benefits in dispute.
ANALYSIS
The applicant did not attend and did not make any submissions
4This matter was to have originally been heard June 16, 2025. The applicant did not attend that hearing and, pursuant to Rule 3.5 of the Licence Appeal Tribunal Rules, 2023, was put on notice of the Tribunals intent to dismiss the appeal as abandoned without a hearing if he did not attend on the next scheduled hearing date.
5The applicant was invited to make written submissions regarding the notice to dismiss. I find that the applicant has not made any written submissions following the notice to dismiss.
6I find, pursuant to section 7 of the SPPA, notice of the hearing has been provided in accordance with the SPPA and that I can proceed in the absence of the applicant. The second hearing was to begin at 9:30 AM Monday September 8, 2025.
i. On August 22, 2025, the Tribunal sent a notice of videoconference hearing to the applicant’s email address on file. The notice is clear that a videoconference hearing has been scheduled for September 8, 9 and 10, 2025.
ii. I find that the Tribunal has not been informed of any change in the applicant’s contact information. On September 4, 2025, the Tribunal wrote to the applicant at their email on file to request an update on the hearing status. The applicant has not communicated with the Tribunal. As per Rule 4.4, parties are required to inform all other parties and the Tribunal of any change in their contact information as soon as possible
iii. The applicant did not attend. On September 8, 2025, at 9:30 AM, the hearing began and, the applicant was not in attendance. The hearing was recessed and I asked Tribunal staff to reach out to the applicant to see if he was going to attend the hearing.
a) The assigned case management officer placed two calls to the applicant’s phone number on file. Both calls rang extensively with no answer and no associated voicemail picked up the line.
b) At 9:45 AM, an email was sent to the applicant informing him that the hearing had begun and that if he did not attend by 10:00 AM that his file may be closed.
c) The applicant did not attend by 10 AM.
7I find that the applicant has not made submissions in support of his claims.
8I find that the applicant did not attend the hearing and did not provide any testimony in support of his claims. Therefore, I find he has not met his onus to establish entitlement to the benefits in dispute.
ORDER
9The applicant is not entitled to the benefits in dispute.
10The Tribunal’s file is now closed.
Released: September 17, 2025
__________________________
Timothy Porter
Adjudicator