Licence Appeal Tribunal
Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number: 24-003480/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:
Vital Herault
Applicant
and
Intact Insurance Company
Respondent
DECISION
ADJUDICATOR:
Harry Adamidis
APPEARANCES:
For the Applicant:
Vital Herault, Applicant (Absent)
For the Respondent:
Farzana Merchant, Counsel
HEARD: by Videoconference:
February 24, 2026
OVERVIEW
1Vital Herault, the applicant, was involved in an automobile accident on March 18, 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, 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? Note: The parties agree the MIG limits have not been exhausted and there remains $800.76 as of the case conference date.
ii. Is the applicant entitled to an income replacement benefit in the amount of $400.00 per week from March 25, 2022 to date and ongoing?
iii. Is the applicant entitled to $149.63 ($1,278.41 less $1,128.78 approved for physiotherapy services, proposed by Pro Physio and Sports Medicine Centres in a treatment plan/OCF-18 dated August 11, 2022 and partially denied January 26, 2023?
iv. Is the applicant entitled to $120.00 for a walking air cast, which appears on an invoice dated January 17, 2023?
RESULT
3This application is dismissed.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
4The applicant filed the application on March 19, 2024. He did not attend a case conference that took place on July 23, 2024. A written hearing was scheduled, and the applicant did not submit any evidence or submissions.
5In an order dated July 30, 2025, the Tribunal found that the applicant had not received notice of the case conference, nor did he receive the Case Conference Report and Order (CCRO) which required him to serve and file evidence and submissions by a specified date. As a result, a new case conference was held on August 26, 2025 which the applicant did attend. A new CCRO put in place the conditions for a videoconference hearing and also provided dates for the exchange and service of evidence, and the filing of briefs.
6The applicant did not file a brief with the Tribunal.
7The videoconference hearing was scheduled for February 24, 2026.
8On February 9, 2026, the applicant sent an email to the Registrar stating “Sorry I cannot hear I am in the Philippines I from feb232026 to May 18,2026 so I would like them to extend the date. Ty very much.”
9The Registrar responded to this email on the same day and advised the applicant that Rule 16 of the Licence Appeal Tribunal Rules (“Rules”) requires adjournment requests to be made on a prescribed form and provided a link to the form on the Tribunal’s website. The applicant was also advised that his adjournment request will not be processed without the correct form. He was further informed that if the adjournment request was not received within 2 business days before the hearing, then he must attend the hearing to make an oral request for an adjournment.
10The hearing was scheduled for 9:30AM. The applicant did not appear at that time and the matter was held down until 10:00AM, as required by Rule 3.7.1.
11The applicant did not arrive by 10:00AM and the Tribunal requested submissions from the respondent.
ANALYSIS
12The respondent noted that the applicant is aware of the hearing date but did not request an adjournment as required by the Rules. It further noted that the applicant did not serve and file any evidence. It points to various cases, such as Erb v Intact Insurance, 2024 CanLII 23449 (ON LAT) and Edwards v Economical Insurance Company, 2023 CanLII 32798 (ON LAT), where the Tribunal dismissed applications where the insured had notice of the hearing and did not to participate. It submits that the same circumstances apply here and that this case should be dismissed.
13The applicant contacted the Tribunal and asked for an adjournment. This is a clear indication that he was aware of the hearing. The Registrar advised him on how to request an adjournment under the Rules. He was also advised that his adjournment request will not be processed if he does not complete the prescribed form. At that time, he had 15 calendar days to follow up with the Tribunal, but did not do so. In fact, he had no contact with the Tribunal after his February 9, 2026 email. In my view, the applicant had a reasonable opportunity to make a formal request for an adjournment, or to at least advise the Tribunal if there was a reason why such a request could not be made. He did neither. In light of this, I find there is no basis to consider adjourning this hearing where he has also failed to file a hearing brief as required.
14The applicant was aware of this hearing but failed to attend. He did not file any evidence to support his case as required by the second CCRO. He indicated that he would be in the Philippines on the day of the hearing but failed to file a proper adjournment request despite having a reasonable opportunity to do so. These factors lead me to conclude that he has not made meaningful attempts to pursue his case. Consequently, I find that this hearing should proceed in his absence pursuant to s. 7(1) of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act.
15It is the applicant’s burden to demonstrate that removal from the MIG is warranted and that the benefits claimed are reasonable and necessary. The applicant did not file any evidence and made no submissions to meet this burden. There is no basis to allow this application. As such, this application is dismissed.
ORDER
16This application is dismissed.
Released: March 17, 2026
Harry Adamidis
Adjudicator