Bradley Steele v. RBC General Insurance Company, 2014 ONFSCDRS 117

Financial Services Commission des Commission services financiers of Ontario de l’Ontario

Neutral Citation: 2014 ONFSCDRS 117

FSCO A13-003158

BETWEEN:

BRADLEY STEELE

Applicant

and

RBC GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY

Insurer

REASONS FOR DECISION

Before: Stuart J. Mutch

Heard: July 4, 2014, at the offices of the Financial Services Commission of Ontario in Toronto.

Appearances: Mr. Steele, appearing on his own behalf Mr. Jonathan Frustaglia for Pappas Romero Ms. Samantha Mason for RBC General Insurance Company

Issues:

The Applicant, Bradley Steele, was injured in a motor vehicle accident on March 24, 2012. He claimed statutory accident benefits from RBC General Insurance Company (“RBC”), payable under the Schedule.¹ Disputes arose concerning his entitlement to benefits. The parties were unable to resolve their disputes through mediation, and Mr. Steele applied for arbitration at the Financial Services Commission of Ontario under the Insurance Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.I.8, as amended.

The issue in this motion is:

Should Pappas Romero be permitted to withdraw as Mr. Steele’s representative?

Result:

Pappas Romero is permitted to withdraw as Mr. Steele’s representative.

EVIDENCE AND ANALYSIS:

Motion to Withdraw as Mr. Steele’s Representative

Pappas Romero Law Firm Professional Corporation (“Pappas Romero”) filed a motion record dated June 23, 2014 for an Order removing Pappas Romero as lawyers of record for Mr. Steele, and for the costs of bringing this motion.

The motion was heard on July 4, 2014 at the offices of FSCO. I heard submissions from Mr. Frustaglia on behalf of Pappas Romero, and from Mr. Steele. RBC did not take a position with regard to the motion.

The affidavit of Mr. Lorne Weinstock, a lawyer with Pappas Romero, sworn June 23, 2014, and filed as part of the motion record, outlined the history of the relationship between Mr. Steele and Pappas Romero. Mr. Weinstock alleged that Mr. Steele, among other things, refused to act on the advice given to him by Pappas Romero, that he was verbally abusive to Pappas Romero staff, and that he entered into settlement discussions with the RBC without involving Pappas Romero. He alleged that there was what I could describe as an “off again, on again” relationship with Mr. Steele. For his part, Mr. Steele denied not following advice. He took the position that the original financial arrangements he had made with Pappas Romero had not been honoured. He claimed that there was a lack of continuity in the handling of his file by Pappas Romero and that he was unable to obtain a prompt response to his enquiries.

It became clear over the course of submissions that a lack of trust has developed between Mr. Steele and Pappas Romero. Indeed, it appears there was confusion at times as to whether a lawyer-client relationship existed and if it did, what that relationship entailed.

Trust and a mutual understanding of each other’s role are key ingredients in the lawyer-client relationship. I am satisfied that those ingredients are now absent in the relationship between Pappas Romero and Mr. Steele. There has been a breakdown in the lawyer-client relationship. The next step in the process of arbitration is a pre-hearing scheduled for December 2, 2014. This gives Mr. Steele adequate time to retain other counsel if he so chooses. He will not be prejudiced by the withdrawal of Pappas Romero as his representative at this point in the arbitration process. Pursuant to Rule 9.8 of the Dispute Resolution Practice Code, it is hereby ordered that the Law Offices of Pappas Romero be permitted to withdraw as Mr. Steele’s representative in this proceeding, without terms.

Costs

Mr. Frustaglia asked for Pappas Romero’s costs in bringing the motion. He argued that, had Mr. Steele consented to Pappas Romero’s withdrawal, the motion would have been unnecessary.

Mr. Steele, by his own admission, is not knowledgeable as to legal matters or experienced as a client in a lawyer-client relationship. I believe that he did not fully understand the nature of the lawyer-client relationship, the respective rights and obligations of the parties in that relationship, including the obligations of Pappas Romero as his representative of record or the arbitration process. I do not believe he was deliberately obstructing or prolonging the arbitration process by refusing to consent to Pappas Romero’ withdrawal. I find that it would be inappropriate to award Pappas Romero its expenses in these circumstances.

July 11, 2014

Stuart Mutch Arbitrator

Date