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

Neutral Citation: 2014 ONFSCDRS 82

FSCO A11-004258

BETWEEN:

ROUHIN MAJIDZADEH

Applicant

and

WAWANESA MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY

Insurer

Before: Anne Sone

Heard: March 21, 2014, at the offices of the Financial Services Commission of Ontario in Toronto

Appearances: No one appearing for Mr. Majidzadeh Pamela A. Brownlee for Wawanesa Mutual Insurance Company

Issue:

The issue in this hearing is:

Should Mr. Majidzadeh’s Application for Arbitration be dismissed?

Result:

Mr. Majidzadeh’s Application for Arbitration is dismissed.

Background:

The Applicant, Rouhin Majidzadeh, was injured in a motor vehicle accident on September 30, 2009. He applied for statutory accident benefits from Wawanesa Mutual Insurance Company (“Wawanesa”), payable under the Schedule.¹ The parties were unable to resolve their disputes through mediation, and Mr. Majidzadeh applied for arbitration at the Financial Services Commission of Ontario under the Insurance Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.I.8, as amended.

Chronology:

On November 30, 2011, the Commission registered Mr. Majidzadeh’s Application for Arbitration.
On April 17, 2013, Mr. Majidzadeh sent a letter to the Commission asking that the pre-hearing in this case scheduled for May 8, 2013, be adjourned, to allow him to obtain new legal counsel.
On April 26, 2013, I granted the adjournment to a time and date to be determined, to give Mr. Majidzadeh an opportunity to obtain new legal counsel. I also stated the following in bold letters:

I request that you advise the Commission within three months of the particulars of your new counsel.

Since the Commission did not hear from Mr. Majidzadeh, a Notice of Pre-Hearing Discussion was sent out on September 3, 2013, indicating that the pre-hearing discussion in this case was being held on December 4, 2013, at 2:00 p.m. at the Commission.
Mr. Majidzadeh did not attend the pre-hearing discussion scheduled for December 4, 2013 at the Commission.
Due to Mr. Majidzadeh’s failure to attend his pre-hearing discussion, I scheduled a resumption of pre-hearing for March 21, 2014, at 10:00 a.m., at the Commission.
In my pre-hearing letter dated December 4, 2013, I notified Mr. Majidzadeh that I intended to dismiss his proceeding, should he not attend the resumption of pre-hearing on March 21, 2014.
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 Wawanesa, and file it with the Commission within 20 days of the date of the notice, pursuant to Rule 68.3 of the Dispute Resolution Practice Code (Fourth Edition — Updated January 2014) (the “Code”).
On December 18, 2013, the Commission sent a Notice of Resumption of Pre-Hearing Discussion to Mr. Majidzadeh indicating that his pre-hearing discussion would be resumed on March 21, 2014 at the Commission.
Mr. Majidzadeh did not respond to my notice.
Mr. Majidzadeh did not attend the resumption of pre-hearing discussion on March 21, 2014 at the Commission.

Disposition of the Arbitration Proceeding:

A Notice of Resumption of Pre-Hearing was sent to Mr. Majidzadeh on December 18, 2013. This Notice was not returned to the Commission.

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. Majidzadeh did not provide the DRG with any notice of a change in his address.

On March 21, 2014, Ms. Brownlee, counsel for Wawanesa and I waited until 11:00 a.m. for Mr. Majidzadeh to attend at the Commission for the resumption of his pre-hearing. He did not attend. At that time, Wawanesa requested that Mr. Majidzadeh’s Application for Arbitration be dismissed.

I dismiss Mr. Majidzadeh’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 required by my letter of December 4, 2013. This dismissal is under Rule 68 of the Code on the basis that this proceeding is frivolous, vexatious or is commenced in bad faith.

May 16, 2014

Anne Sone Arbitrator

Date