Financial Services Commission des

Commission services financiers

of Ontario de l’Ontario

Neutral Citation: 2014 ONFSCDRS 53

FSCO A11-004376

BETWEEN:

SAMUEL APPIAGYEI-MENSAH

Applicant

and

INTACT INSURANCE COMPANY

Insurer

Before: Robert Bujold

Heard: March 7, 2014, at the offices of the Financial Services Commission of Ontario in Toronto

Appearances: Mr. Appiagyei-Mensah did not appear

Mr. David LeDrew for Intact Insurance Company

Issues:

The Applicant, Samuel Appiagyei-Mensah, claims to have been injured in a motor vehicle accident on February 23, 2010. He applied for statutory accident benefits from Intact Insurance Company (“Intact”), payable under the Schedule.¹ Issues arose regarding the Applicant’s entitlement to certain benefits. The parties were unable to resolve their disputes through mediation, and Mr. Appiagyei-Mensah 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. Appiagyei-Mensah’s application for arbitration be dismissed?

Result:

Mr. Appiagyei-Mensah’s application for arbitration is dismissed.
Mr. Appiagyei-Mensah shall pay Intact’s expenses of the arbitration fixed at $1,500.00.

EVIDENCE AND ANALYSIS:

Background:

Mr. Appiagyei-Mensah failed to attend a pre-hearing discussion held on November 26, 2013. Lofranco Corriero Personal Injury Lawyers (“Lofranco Corriero”) brought a motion, returnable on the same date, for an Order permitting the firm to withdraw as Mr. Appiagyei-Mensah’s representative in this matter. I was satisfied that the firm had met the requirements of Rule 9 of the Dispute Resolution Practice Code, and I found that there had been a serious breakdown in the representative-client relationship. As a result, I permitted Lofranco Corriero to withdraw as Mr. Appiagyei-Mensah’s representative.

The pre-hearing discussion then proceeded in Mr. Appiagyei-Mensah’s absence. The issues were identified as the issues set out in the Application for Arbitration, and a hearing date was scheduled for March 7, 2014. My pre-hearing letter of December 2, 2013 confirmed the date and time of the hearing, and advised the parties as follows:

Intact has been advised not to prepare for a contested hearing on March 7, 2014. In the event that Mr. Appiagyei-Mensah (with or without a representative) attends on that date, the hearing will not proceed and the appointment will be converted into a resumption of the pre-hearing discussion. However, in the event that Mr. Appiagyei-Mensah does not attend then, as noted above, the hearing may proceed in his absence. Mr. Appiagyei-Mensah’s application for arbitration may be dismissed and Intact’s expenses of the arbitration proceeding may be awarded against him.

A Notice of Hearing dated January 13, 2014, confirming the March 7, 2014 hearing, was sent to Mr. Appiagyei-Mensah. The Notice of Hearing was not returned to the Commission as undeliverable.

The Arbitration Hearing:

On March 7, 2014 at 10:00 a.m., Mr. LeDrew attended at the Commission on behalf of Intact.

By 10:20 a.m., Mr. Appiagyei-Mensah had still not appeared at the offices of the Commission.

Pursuant to Rule 37.7 of the Code, and being satisfied that Mr. Appiagyei-Mensah had been properly served at his last known address with the Notice of Hearing, the arbitration hearing proceeded in his absence.

As Mr. Appiagyei-Mensah did not attend to present any evidence, he failed to establish his entitlement to the benefits claimed. Mr. Appiagyei-Mensah’s claims were therefore dismissed.

EXPENSES:

On hearing the submissions of counsel for Intact, I find that Intact is entitled to its expenses of the arbitration which I fix at $1,500.00.

March 31, 2014

Robert Bujold

Arbitrator

Date