Citation: Calle v. Allstate Insurance Company of Canada, 2026 ONLAT 25-007468/AABS

Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number: 25-007468/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:

Julian Marin Calle

Applicant

and

Allstate Insurance Company of Canada

Respondent

DECISION

ADJUDICATOR:

Melanie Malach

APPEARANCES:

For the Applicant:

Filippo Isabella, Paralegal

For the Respondent:

Kristen Slaney, Counsel

HEARD:

By way of written submissions

OVERVIEW

1Julian Marin Calle, the applicant, was involved in an automobile accident on December 21, 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, Allstate Insurance Company of Canada, 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 limit?

ii. Is the applicant entitled to $2,200.00 for a chronic pain assessment proposed by Unison Medical Assessments in a treatment plan dated June 12, 2023?

iii. Is the applicant entitled to $4,164.64 for psychological services, proposed by Unison Medical Assessments in a treatment plan dated June 12, 2023?

RESULT

3I find that the applicant’s injuries are predominantly minor as defined in s. 3 of the Schedule. I further find that the applicant is not entitled to the treatment plan for a chronic pain assessment, dated June 12, 2023 or the treatment plan for psychological services, dated June 12, 2023.

ANALYSIS

4In the Case Conference Report and Order (“CCRO”), released on September 24, 2025, the Tribunal ordered the dispute to proceed to a written hearing. The Tribunal scheduled a written hearing for March 13, 2026. Notice of the written hearing was sent to the parties on October 2, 2025, using the contact information provided.

5By correspondence dated January 29, 2026, the Tribunal sent an email reminding all parties that their submissions due date is approaching for the upcoming written hearing.

6By correspondence dated February 25, 2026, the respondent wrote to the applicant’s counsel and the Tribunal by email advising that as it had not received the applicant’s submissions, nor a Notice of Withdrawal, the applicant’s Application is abandoned and thus should be dismissed. Alternatively, the respondent stated that should the applicant file late submissions, the respondent reserves the right to file their submissions in accordance with the CCRO timelines or to be granted leave to bring an urgent motion for an extension of the timelines for the response submissions.

7By email correspondence dated April 20, 2026, the Tribunal advised both parties that the applicant and the respondent’s submissions were not received by the Tribunal. It asks whether the parties have reached a resolution and if yes, to notify the Tribunal as soon as possible and submit a Notice of Withdrawal form.

8By email correspondence dated April 20, 2026, the respondent responded to the Tribunal that it had addressed this issue in its correspondence dated February 25, 2026.

9I find that the applicant has not provided any submissions or replied to the correspondence sent by the Tribunal or by the respondent. I further find that the applicant has not filed a Notice of Withdrawal with the Tribunal.

10I 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 October 2, 2025.

11The applicant has the onus of demonstrating that his injuries are not predominantly minor as defined in s. 3 of the Schedule as well as entitlement to the treatment plans in dispute. 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 proving that his injuries are not predominantly minor as defined in s. 3 of the Schedule or entitlement to the treatment plan for a chronic pain assessment or the treatment plan for psychological services.

ORDER

12For the reasons outlined above, I find that the applicant’s injuries are predominantly minor as defined in s. 3 of the Schedule. I further find that the applicant is not entitled to the treatment plan for a chronic pain assessment, dated June 12, 2023 or the treatment plan for psychological services, dated June 12, 2023. The Application is dismissed.