Neutral Citation: 2013 ONFSCDRS 146 FSCO A12-002596

BETWEEN:

RONALD POINT DE JOUR Applicant

and

STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY Insurer

DECISION ON A MOTION

Before: Anne Sone Heard: August 14, 2013, at the offices of the Financial Services Commission of Ontario in Toronto, Ontario.

Appearances: Eti Hankin for Mr. Point De Jour Ashraf (Ashu) Ismail for State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company

Issues:

The Applicant, Ronald Point De Jour, claims he was injured in a motor vehicle accident on November 27, 2010. He applied for statutory accident benefits from State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (“State Farm”), payable under the Schedule.¹ The parties were unable to resolve their disputes through mediation, and Mr. Point De Jour applied for arbitration at the Financial Services Commission of Ontario under the Insurance Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.I.8, as amended.

Issue:

The issue is:

Should Alexander Mazin be permitted to withdraw as the representative for Ronald Point De Jour in this proceeding?

Result:

Alexander Mazin is permitted to withdraw as the representative for Ronald Point De Jour in this proceeding.

EVIDENCE AND ANALYSIS:

Background:

The Pre-Hearing in this matter was originally scheduled for January 9, 2013, 10:00 a.m., at the Commission. As set out in the sworn Affidavit of Inna Ryzhkova, assistant to Alexander Mazin, Mr. Mazin’s office sent a letter to Mr. Point De Jour advising him of the date and location of the Pre-Hearing discussion. He was informed that he must attend, and asked that he confirm his attendance by telephone. Mr. Mazin’s office made several attempts to contact Mr. Point De Jour by telephone. However, Mr. Point De Jour failed to respond.

On December 12, 2012, Mr. Mazin’s office sent a letter to the Commission requesting an adjournment of the Pre-Hearing due to a scheduling conflict that arose out of the dissolution of Mr. Mazin’s law partnership. The Pre-Hearing was re-scheduled to June 25, 2013 at 2:00 p.m.

On December 12, 2012, Mr. Mazin’s office sent a second letter to Mr. Point De Jour advising him of the date and location of the re-scheduled Pre-Hearing. He was informed that he must attend, and was requested to confirm his attendance by telephone.

On April 2, 2013, Mr. Mazin’s office sent a third letter to Mr. Point De Jour reminding him of the date and location of the re-scheduled Pre-Hearing. He was again informed that he must attend, and was again requested to confirm his attendance by telephone.

Between November 5, 2012 and May 21, 2013, Mr. Mazin’s office made several follow up telephone calls to Mr. Point De Jour, without any success.

On May 21, 2013, Mr. Mazin sent a letter to Mr. Point De Jour’s last known address informing him that he was proceeding with a Motion to be removed as solicitor of record for Mr. Point De Jour. At the same time he sent the Motion Record for this Motion to Mr. Point De Jour.

The grounds for the Motion are Mr. Point De Jour’s non-co-operation with his counsel, which has led to a complete breakdown in the solicitor-client relationship.

Mr. Mazin has provided Mr. Point De Jour’s last known address and telephone number.

On August 14, 2013, Mr. Point De Jour did not attend at the Commission to dispute this Motion. I attempted to reach him by telephone, but there was no answer, and no voice mail option.

Law regarding Motion to Withdraw Representation:

The Dispute Resolution Practice Code (Fourth Edition –Updated August 2011) (the “Code”) sets out at Rules 9.7 and 9.8 what a representative who seeks to withdraw from a proceeding must do. The representative must provide the following:

(a) a written request for withdrawal, with reasons, to the Dispute Resolution Group and all parties to the proceeding;

(b) the last known address, telephone number and electronic transmission address (if any) of the represented party.

If the represented party does not provide written consent to the representative’s request for withdrawal, an adjudicator may permit the representative to withdraw, subject to such terms as the adjudicator considers just.

Conclusion:

Mr. Mazin has provided a written request for withdrawal of his representation of Mr. Point De Jour through his Motion Record sent on all parties to the proceeding on May 21, 2013. The Motion Record sets out Mr. Point De Jour’s last known address.

Due to the inability to reach Mr. Point De Jour, and his failure to respond to notices and telephone calls regarding his Pre-Hearing, and this Motion, I conclude that there has been a complete breakdown in the solicitor-client relationship. In addition, Mr. Mazin is unable to obtain Mr. Point De Jour’s consent to his withdrawal as Mr. Point De Jour’s representative.

Under section 9.1(c) of the Code, parties must provide the Dispute Resolution Group with written notice of any change to their address or telephone number. The Dispute Resolution Group is entitled to rely on their last known address and telephone number. Under all these circumstances, I find that Mr. Mazin has complied with the provisions of the Code and that it is appropriate to permit him to withdraw as Mr. Point De Jour’s representative in this proceeding.

November 15, 2013

Anne Sone Arbitrator

Date

Financial Services Commission of Ontario