Meaghan Hart v. Royal & SunAlliance Insurance Company of Canada, 2014 ONFSCDRS 47

Financial Services Commission des

Commission services financiers

of Ontario de l’Ontario

Neutral Citation: 2014 ONFSCDRS 47

FSCO A12-004428

BETWEEN:

MEAGHAN HART

Applicant

and

ROYAL & SUNALLIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY OF CANADA

Insurer

REASONS FOR DECISION

Before: Anne Sone

Heard: By telephone conference call on January 28, 2014.

Appearances: Ms. Hart did not appear and no one appeared on her behalf

Stacey Iordanis for Royal & SunAlliance Insurance Company of Canada

Issues:

The Applicant, Meaghan Hart, was involved in a motor vehicle accident on November 23, 2010. She applied for statutory accident benefits from Royal & SunAlliance Insurance Company of Canada (“Royal”), payable under the Schedule.¹ The parties were unable to resolve their disputes through mediation, and Ms. Hart 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 hearing is:

Should Ms. Hart’s Application for Arbitration be dismissed?

Result:

Ms. Hart’s Application for Arbitration is dismissed.

CHRONOLOGY:

On July 27, 2012, the Commission received Ms. Hart’s Application for Arbitration.
Ms. Hart did not attend a pre-hearing discussion scheduled for June 5, 2013 at the Commission.
Her representative attended by telephone.
Due to Ms. Hart’s failure to attend her pre-hearing, and to contact her representatives, I scheduled a resumption of pre-hearing for November 22, 2013, at 2:00 p.m., by telephone.
In my pre-hearing letter dated June 7, 2013, I notified Ms. Hart that I intended to dismiss her proceeding, should she not attend the resumption of pre-hearing on November 22, 2013.
I also indicated that if she objected to a dismissal of the proceeding, she must provide the grounds upon which she objects. In addition, she was to serve this material upon Royal, and file it with the Commission within 20 days of the date of the notice, pursuant to Rule 68.3 of Dispute Resolution Practice Code (Fourth edition, Updated January 2014) (the Code).
Ms. Hart did not respond to my notice.
Since Ms. Hart had not been in contact with her representatives, I permitted them to withdraw as set out in a decision dated August 12, 2013.

EVIDENCE AND ANALYSIS:

A Notice of Resumption of Pre-Hearing was sent to Ms. Hart on June 11, 2013. This Notice was not returned to the Commission.

On November 22, 2013, at 2:00 p.m., I attempted to reach Ms. Hart by telephone. The message I received was that “The customer is moving. The new service is not yet connected.”

Pursuant to section 9.1(c) of the Code, parties must provide the Dispute Resolution Group (DRG) with written notice of any change of their address. The DRG is entitled to rely on the last known address contained in its records. Ms. Hart did not provide the DRG with any notice of a change in her address.

I dismiss Ms. Hart’s Application for Arbitration on the basis that she did not object to a dismissal of this proceeding, and failed to attend the Resumption of Pre-Hearing, both as required by my letter of June 7, 2013. This dismissal is under Rule 68 of the Dispute Resolution Practice Code on the basis that this proceeding is frivolous, vexatious or is commenced in bad faith.

March 25, 2014

Anne Sone

Arbitrator

Date