Faaz Resheed Tahuwa v. Intact Insurance Company, 2013 ONFSCDRS 37

Financial Services Commission des

Commission services financiers

of Ontario de l’Ontario

Neutral Citation: 2013 ONFSCDRS 37

FSCO A11-004365

BETWEEN:

FAAZ RESHEED TAHUWA

Applicant

and

INTACT INSURANCE COMPANY

Insurer

REASONS FOR DECISION

Before: Jessica Kowalski

Heard: By written hearing, conducted in accordance with Rule 68 of the Dispute Resolution Practice Code

Issue:

The issue in this hearing is whether this application should be dismissed without a hearing pursuant to Rule 68 of the Dispute Resolution Practice Code because it is frivolous or vexatious.

Result:

This application is dismissed.

THE FACTS

Mr. Tahuwa commenced this application against Intact Insurance Company (“Intact”) on December 6, 2011. Intact filed its response on or about January 9, 2012.

The pre-hearing conference took place on August 9, 2012. Mr. Tahuwa did not attend. His counsel, Mr. Gary Mazin, attended. The parties agreed to proceed with the pre-hearing but also to schedule a resumption of the pre-hearing so that Mr. Tahuwa could participate and to give Intact the opportunity to speak to Mr. Tahuwa. The resumed pre-hearing was scheduled for September 14, 2012.

On August 30, 2012, Mr. Mazin’s firm served Mr. Tahuwa with notice of motion and a motion record in which they sought an order removing them as Mr. Tahuwa’s legal representatives before the Commission.

The motion was to be heard during the resumed pre-hearing on September 14, 2012 and was served on Mr. Tahuwa at his last known address. Mr. Tahuwa did not participate.

For reasons set out in my order dated November 9, 2012, I removed Mazin Rooz Mazin as Mr. Tahuwa’s solicitors of record. I rescheduled the pre-hearing to resume on December 5, 2012 to allow Mr. Tahuwa a further opportunity to participate.

Mr. Tahuwa did not respond or participate. All attempts by the Commission to contact him at his last known address and previous address by telephone, regular and registered mail, were unsuccessful.

At the December 5, 2012 resumed pre-hearing, Intact asked for an order dismissing this application as being frivolous or vexatious. I wrote to Mr. Tahuwa by letter dated December 17, 2012 setting out the Commission’s attempts to contact him and notifying him of Intact’s request. I wrote that I intended to dismiss Mr. Tahuwa’s application unless he provided me with written notice of his objection, together with reasons.

As part of their motion to be removed as solicitors of record, Mr. Tahuwa’s former counsel conducted a Ministry of Transportation search. Correspondence sent by the Commission by regular mail to Mr. Tahuwa at both the address on his application and to the address in the Ministry of Transportion search was not returned. Mr. Tahuwa did not collect registered letters from the Commission, which were ultimately returned by Canada Post.

CONCLUSION

Mr. Tahuwa has failed to participate in any proceeding before the Commission since he filed this application. He failed to attend the pre-hearing and two resumed pre-hearings, without excuse. He has not responded to his former counsel’s request to be removed from the record. To date, I have received no written or other communication from Mr. Tahuwa.

It appears that Mr. Tahuwa has no interest in pursuing this application any further. I find that the application has become frivolous and vexatious and ought therefore to be dismissed.

EXPENSES

If either party wishes to make any submissions with respect to the issue of expenses, they may do so in accordance with Rules 75-79 of the Dispute Resolution Practice Code.

March 19, 2013

Jessica Kowalski

Arbitrator

Date