Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number: 24-007667/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:
Jeyakumar Singarasa
Applicant
and
Intact Insurance Company
Respondent
DECISION
ADJUDICATOR:
Melanie Malach
APPEARANCES:
For the Applicant:
Tal Eshel, Counsel
For the Respondent:
Jonathan Wong, Counsel
HEARD:
By way of written submissions
OVERVIEW
1Jeyakumar Singarasa, the applicant, was involved in an automobile accident on November 8, 2019, 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.
PRELIMINARY ISSUES
2The preliminary issue to be decided are:
i. Is the applicant barred from proceeding to a hearing for the following benefits: issues 3(i) and 3 (ii) listed in [5] below because the applicant failed to attend an insurer’s examination under s. 44 of the Schedule?
SUBSTANTITVE ISSUES
3The 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 limit?
ii. Is the applicant entitled to a non-earner benefit (“NEB”) of $185.00 per week from December 6, 2019 to December 6, 2021?
iii. Is the applicant entitled to the assessments proposed by Scarborough Rehabilitation Clinic Inc., as follows:
$2,650.00 for a chronic pain assessment, in a treatment plan submitted September 8, 2020; and
$2,500.00 for a psychology assessment, in a treatment plan submitted March 27, 2020?
iv. Is the applicant entitled to $59.59 for prescription expenses, submitted on a claim form (“OCF-6”) dated September 10, 2021?
v. Is the respondent liable to pay an award under s. 10 of Reg. 664 because it unreasonably withheld or delayed payments to the applicant?
vi. Is the applicant entitled to interest on any overdue payments to the applicant?
RESULT
4I find that the applicant’s accident-related injuries are predominantly minor and he is therefore subject to treatment within the $3,500.00 limit of the MIG. I find that the applicant is not entitled to a NEB, the treatment plans in dispute, an award or interest.
ANALYSIS
5In the Case Conference Report and Order (“CCRO”), released on November 12, 2024, the Tribunal ordered the dispute to proceed to a written hearing. The Tribunal scheduled a written hearing for July 25, 2025. Notice of the written hearing was sent to the parties on November 14, 2024, using the contact information provided.
6The applicant’s initial written submissions were due on June 25, 2025. The Tribunal has not received the applicant’s written submissions. By correspondence dated August 15, 2025, the Tribunal wrote to all parties advising that the applicant’s submissions were not received by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has not received any further correspondence from the applicant. I find that no Notice of Motion has been filed seeking to extend the applicant’s submission deadline, and no Notice of Withdrawal has been filed by the applicant.
7The respondent filed its submissions in compliance with the CCRO on July 11, 2025. It submits that the applicant has failed to deliver his written submissions in support of his application by the deadline, or at all, as ordered by the Tribunal. As such, the respondent requests that the Tribunal exercise its power and discretion to dismiss this application as abandoned due to the applicant’s non-compliance.
8I find that as the applicant did not file a Notice of Withdrawal with the Tribunal, the file was not closed. I will therefore proceed with the hearing pursuant to s. 7(2) of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act. I find that the parties had notice of the written hearing by way of email on November 14, 2024.
9The applicant has the onus of demonstrating removal from the MIG, entitlement to a NEB, entitlement to the treatment plans in dispute, an award and interest. As no submissions or evidence have been filed with the Tribunal by the applicant, I find that the applicant has not met his burden of demonstrating removal from the MIG, entitlement to a NEB, entitlement to the treatment plans in dispute, an award or interest, in dispute.
ORDER
10For the reasons outlined above, I find that the applicant’s accident-related injuries are predominantly minor and he is therefore subject to treatment within the $3,50000 limit of the MIG. I find that the applicant is not entitled to a NEB, the treatment plans in dispute, an award or interest. The application is dismissed.
Released: January 14, 2026
Melanie Malach
Adjudicator