Financial Services Commission des Commission services financiers of Ontario de l’Ontario
Neutral Citation: 2008 ONFSCDRS 52
FSCO A06-000706
BETWEEN:
NATISHA LYNSIA RYNER Applicant
and
ZURICH INSURANCE COMPANY (COMMERCIAL BUSINESS) Insurer
REASONS FOR DECISION
Before: Anne Sone
Heard: July 27, 2007, at the offices of the Financial Services Commission of Ontario in Toronto. Final written submissions due by November 7, 2007.
Appearances: No one appearing for Ms. Ryner1 Marleen Grant for Zurich Insurance Company (Commercial Business)
Issues:
The Applicant, Natisha Lynsia Ryner, was injured in a motor vehicle accident on May 14, 2005. She applied for and received statutory accident benefits from Zurich Insurance Company (Commercial Business) (“Zurich”), payable under the Schedule.2 Zurich terminated weekly caregiver and housekeeping and home maintenance benefits on June 12, 2005. It submits that the chiropractic treatment and related expenses that Ms. Ryner is claiming are not reasonable and necessary. The parties were unable to resolve their disputes through mediation, and Ms. Ryner applied for arbitration at the Financial Services Commission of Ontario (“the Commission”) under the Insurance Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.I.8, as amended.
The issues in this case are:
Is Ms. Ryner entitled to weekly caregiver benefits in the amount of $250 per week for the period from June 13, 2005 to date and ongoing, for services provided by Ms. Laverne Ryner, pursuant to section 13 of the Schedule?
Is Ms. Ryner entitled to receive a medical benefit for chiropractic treatment from East Sheppard Rehabilitation Company Ltd. in the amount of $925 outstanding from a treatment plan dated September 19, 2005, in the amount of $2,248, pursuant to section 14 of the Schedule?
Is Ms. Ryner entitled to receive payments at the rate of $100 per week for housekeeping and home maintenance services performed by Ms. Laverne Ryner from June 13, 2005 to date and ongoing, pursuant to section 22 of the Schedule?
Is Zurich entitled to a repayment of the caregiver and housekeeping and home maintenance benefits it has paid to Ms. Ryner, pursuant to section 47 of the Schedule?
Is Zurich liable to pay Ms. Ryner’s expenses in respect of the arbitration under section 282(11) of the Insurance Act?
Is Ms. Ryner liable to pay Zurich’s expenses in respect of the arbitration under section 282(11) of the Insurance Act?
Is Ms. Ryner entitled to interest for the overdue payment of benefits pursuant to section 46(2) of the Schedule?
Result:
Ms. Ryner is not entitled to weekly caregiver benefits
Ms. Ryner is not entitled to receive a medical benefit for chiropractic treatment from East Sheppard Rehabilitation Company Ltd. in the amount of $925.
Ms. Ryner is not entitled to receive payments at the rate of $100 per week for housekeeping and home maintenance services performed by Ms. Laverne Ryner.
Zurich is not entitled to a repayment of caregiver and housekeeping and home maintenance benefits it paid to Ms. Ryner.
If either party wishes to do so, they may request a hearing regarding the issue of expenses pursuant to the provisions of Rule 75 of the Dispute Resolution Practice Code, (Fourth Edition, updated October 2003), (“the Code”) within 30 days of the date of this decision.
EVIDENCE AND ANALYSIS:
Background:
This matter raises the issue of what happens if applicants decide for whatever reason to abandon their case, while at the same time changing their address and telephone number without notifying the Commission or even their own counsel.
A pre-hearing in this matter was scheduled for November 22, 2006 at 10:00 a.m. at the Financial Services Commission of Ontario. The Commission sent a Notice of Pre-Hearing Discussion, dated July 6, 2006, to Natisha Ryner at her last known address. Her solicitors, Mazin Rooz Mazin, sent a letter dated October 30, 2006 to her last known address, advising her that she was required to attend a pre-hearing before the Commission on November 22, 2006 at 10:00 a.m.
Ms. Ryner did not attend the pre-hearing held on November 22, 2006, as confirmed in my pre-hearing letter of December 6, 2006. At this initial pre-hearing discussion, I dealt with the administrative issues and scheduled a resumption of pre-hearing for June 1, 2007, at 10:00 a.m., at the Commission. My notes also indicate that the Case Administrator was asked to confirm that the Commission had Ms. Ryner’s correct address and that her counsel advised that he has not been able to reach her by telephone as her line is no longer in service.
The Commission sent the Applicant a Notice of Resumption of Pre-Hearing Discussion dated November 28, 2006 indicating that the pre-hearing discussion would be resumed on June