Ronald Point De Jour v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, 2014 ONFSCDRS 48

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

Neutral Citation: 2014 ONFSCDRS 48

FSCO A12-002596

BETWEEN:

RONALD POINT DE JOUR

Applicant

and

STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY

Insurer

REASONS FOR DECISION

Before: Anne Sone

Heard: By telephone conference call on January 10, 2014.

Appearances: Mr. Point De Jour not appearing and no one appearing on his behalf Ashraf (Ashu) Ismail for State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company

Issues:

The Applicant, Ronald Point De Jour, was involved 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.

The issue in this hearing is:

Should Mr. Point De Jour’s Application for Arbitration be dismissed?

Result:

Mr. Point De Jour’s Application for Arbitration is dismissed.

CHRONOLOGY:

On May 18, 2012, the Commission received Mr. Point De Jour’s Application for Arbitration.
Both the Commission and Mr. Point De Jour’s representative, Mr. Mazin, sent correspondence to him advising him of a pre-hearing in his matter scheduled for January 9, 2013.
Mr. Mazin’s office made several attempts to contact Mr. Point De Jour; however, Mr. Point De Jour failed to respond.
At Mr. Mazin’s request the pre-hearing scheduled for January 9, 2013 was adjourned to June 25, 2013.
From December 12, 2012 to May 21, 2013, Mr. Mazin’s office made several attempts to reach Mr. Point De Jour by mail and telephone.
Mr. Point De Jour did not attend at the pre-hearing scheduled for June 25, 2013.
In my pre-hearing letter dated June 25, 2013, I advised Mr. Point De Jour that if he did not attend the resumption of his pre-hearing, I intended to dismiss his Application for Arbitration pursuant to Rule 68 of the Dispute Resolution Practice Code (Fourth edition, Updated January 2014) (the Code).
I also indicated that if he objected to a dismissal of the proceeding, he must provide the grounds upon which he objects. In addition, he was to serve this material upon State Farm, and file it with the Commission within 20 days of the date of the notice, pursuant to Rule 68.3 of the Code.
Mr. Point De Jour did not respond to my notice.
When Mr. Point De Jour continued to fail to respond, Mr. Mazin brought a motion to be permitted to withdraw as the representative for Mr. Point De Jour.
As set out in a decision dated November 15, 2013, I permitted Mr. Mazin to withdraw as the representative for Mr. Point De Jour.

EVIDENCE AND ANALYSIS:

On August 21, 2013, the Commission sent Mr. Point De Jour a Notice of Resumption of Pre-Hearing Discussion. The resumption was scheduled for January 10, 2014, at 2:00 p.m., by telephone. This Notice was not returned to the Commission.

On January 10, 2014, at 2:00 p.m., I attempted to reach Mr. Point De Jour by telephone.

The telephone was not answered. I tried a number of times until 2:30 p.m.

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. Mr. Point De Jour did not provide the DRG with any notice of a change in his address.

I dismiss Mr. Point De Jour’s Application for Arbitration on the basis that he 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 25, 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