Neutral Citation: 2004 ONFSCDRS 156

FSCO A03-001511

BETWEEN:

ALEXANDROS KAKANIS

Applicant

and

BERGEL & EDSON LLP

and

ROYAL & SUNALLIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY OF CANADA

Insurer

DECISION ON A MOTION

Before:

David Muir

Heard:

October 1, 2004, at the offices of the Financial Services Commission of Ontario in Toronto.

Appearances:

Mr. L. Climans for Bergel & Edson LLP

Mr. Kakanis for himself

Mr. G. Bogo for Royal & SunAlliance Insurance Company of Canada

Issues:

The Applicant, Alexandros Kakanis, was injured in a motor vehicle accident on November 20, 2002. He applied for and received statutory accident benefits from Royal & SunAlliance Insurance Company of Canada ("Royal"), payable under the Schedule.¹

This is a motion brought by the firm of Bergel & Edson to withdraw as Mr. Kakanis' representative. Mr. Kakanis opposes the request. Royal takes no position on the motion but attended to make further requests with respect to the matter.

The issue in this motion hearing is:

Is the law firm of Bergel & Edson entitled to withdraw as Mr. Kakanis' representative pursuant to Rule 9.8 of the Dispute Resolution Practice Code, (4th Edition Updated – October 2003)?

Result:

Bergel & Edson is entitled to withdraw as Mr. Kakanis' representative pursuant to Rule 9.8 of the Dispute Resolution Practice Code, (4th Edition Updated - October 2003), subject to the following condition:

Bergel & Edson will cooperate with Mr. Kakanis' attempt to find new representation and will provide a complete copy of his file to counsel when requested to do so. If after a reasonable period of time Mr. Kakanis does not find a new representative, Bergel & Edson will provide Mr. Kakanis directly with a copy of his file.

ANALYSIS:

No evidence was called in the motion.

Mr. Climans submits that the basis for the request is a breakdown in the solicitor client relationship. He would say no more than that, citing possible prejudice to Mr. Kakanis' ongoing arbitration. Mr. Kakanis made no submissions with respect to the substance of the motion other than to express confusion about the reasons for his representative's motion.

Based on the submissions of the parties, I was satisfied that there has been a breakdown in the solicitor client relationship and made an order, the substance of which is set out above.

The hearing in this matter is scheduled to begin on November 15, 2004. Mr. Kakanis indicated that he would likely attempt to find a new representative and I recommended that he do so. In the circumstances, I suggested that the hearing dates would probably have to be adjourned. Mr. Bogo also indicated that a resumption of the pre-hearing may be required to deal with a number of outstanding production issues.

In the circumstances, the parties agreed to adjourn the hearing and resume the pre-hearing on October 29, 2004 at 2:00 p.m. by teleconference.

At that time Mr. Kakanis may request further time to find a new representative if he wishes.

October 22, 2004

David Muir Arbitrator

Date