Neutral Citation: 2002 ONFSCDRS 51
FSCO A00-001061
FINANCIAL SERVICES COMMISSION OF ONTARIO
BETWEEN:
ASHLEY PIOTTO
Applicant
and
KINGSWAY GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY
Insurer
REASONS FOR DECISION
Before: John Wilson
Heard: February 11, 2002, at the offices of the Financial Services Commission of Ontario in Toronto.
Appearances:
Ms. Piotto appearing on her own behalf, No-one appearing for Mr. Hare Jamie Pollack for Kingsway General Insurance Company
Issues:
The Applicant, Ashley Piotto, was injured in a motor vehicle accident on February 10, 2000. An application was filed in her name by for certain statutory accident benefits from Kingsway General Insurance Company ("Kingsway"), payable under the Schedule, which consisted of reimbursement for various assessments performed by Profile Evaluations.1 Kingsway declined to pay the benefits claimed and an application was made, in her name, for arbitration at the Financial Services Commission of Ontario under the Insurance Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.I.8, as amended. The application was unsigned, except by Mr. Rod Hare, who was listed as representative. An accompanying document, entitled "Disclosure Consent Agreement" contains a signature over the name of Ms. Piotto.
The application lists Ms. Piotto's birth date as 02/08/83. The "authorization" is dated April 5, 2000. Consequently, Ms. Piotto had just turned 17 some 2 months prior to the date of the authorization.
A pre-hearing was held on January 21, 2001. Mr. Hare and Ms. McRae Hill appeared on behalf of Ms. Piotto, who did not attend. At the pre-hearing, the Insurer raised the issue of whether the authorization relied upon by Mr. Hare of Profile Evaluations was valid, since Ms. Piotto was a minor at the time of its execution.
Counsel for the Insurer subsequently wrote to the Commission requesting that the arbitration be stayed due to the failure of Mr. Hare to produce a valid authorization for proceeding with this matter.
On April 3, 2001, Mr. Hare wrote to the Commission to advise that he had been removed as the representative of record by Ms. Piotto.
A resumption of the pre-hearing was held on June 1, 2001. It was attended neither by Mr. Hare, nor by Ms. Piotto. At that pre-hearing, I ordered that the matter be stayed pending the hearing of the Insurer's motion to dismiss.
A hearing on the Insurer's motion was scheduled for August 27, 2001. This was adjourned, at the request of Ms. Piotto, and re-scheduled for January 18, 2002.
In December, the Insurer served copies of the Notice of Motion and the Motion Record on Ms. Piotto, Ms. McCrae Hill, and Mr. Hare.
Mr. Hare wrote, on December 12, 2001, on behalf of Profile Evaluations, that "we have long since been removed from the record by the claimant and are no longer involved in this matter."
A hearing of the motion was held on January 18, 2002 at the Financial Services Commission. Ms. Piotto, her father Mr. Piotto attended. Mr. Pollack attended on behalf of the Insurer.
The issues in this hearing are:
Should the Application for Arbitration, filed on behalf of Ms. Piotto be dismissed, on the grounds that Mr. Hare and Profile Evaluations did not have proper authority to bring an application in the name of Ms. Piotto, a minor?
Is the Insurer entitled to its expenses in this arbitration against either, or all of Ms. Piotto, Mr. Hare, or Profile Evaluations?
Result:
Ms. Piotto, a minor, was not the true applicant in the Application for arbitration brought in her name, and is not a party to this arbitration. Mr. Hare, as an agent acting without valid authorization is the actual applicant in this matter. The arbitration is dismissed, subject to the Insurer's claim for expenses.
Mr. Hare shall have the opportunity to respond to the Insurer's claim for expenses.