Financial Services Commission of Ontario
Neutral Citation: 2015 ONFSCDRS 112 FSCO A13-015177
BETWEEN:
SIVAKANDEAPAN NAVARATNAM Applicant
and
STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY Insurer
REASONS FOR DECISION
Before: Arbitrator Deborah Anschell Heard: By teleconference on May 12, 2015
Appearances: No one appeared for Mr. Sivakandeapan Navaratnam Mr. Sebastian Schmoranz appeared for State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company
Issues:
The Applicant, Mr. Sivakandeapan Navaratnam, was injured in a motor vehicle accident on November 20, 2009. He applied for and received statutory accident benefits from State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company ("State Farm") under the Schedule.1 The parties were unable to resolve their disputes through mediation, and Mr. Navaratnam 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 Preliminary Hearing is:
- Should Mr. Navaratnam's Application for Arbitration be dismissed?
Result:
- Mr. Navaratnam's Application for Arbitration is dismissed.
EVIDENCE AND ANALYSIS:
On April 9, 2015, Ms. Neha Kohli, the Applicant's previous representative, submitted a Motion to be removed as the counsel of record, because she was unable to obtain instructions from the Applicant.
Mr. Schmoranz did not oppose the Motion.
Rule 9.7 of the Dispute Resolution Practice Code ("DRPC") states:
A representative who seeks to withdraw from a proceeding must:
(a) provide a written request for withdrawal, with reasons, to the Dispute Resolution Group and all parties to the proceeding;
(b) provide the last known address, telephone number and (if any) e-mail address of the represented party.
On the evidence presented, I was satisfied that Ms. Neha Kohli had lost communication with the Applicant, and that she complied with Rule 9.7 of the DRPC. Therefore, Ms. Kohli's request to be removed as counsel of record for Mr. Navaratnam in this Arbitration proceeding was granted.
Dismissal of the Claim
The Applicant submitted an Application for Arbitration on December 5, 2013. The disputed issues were mediated on September 23, 2013. A Pre-Hearing discussion in this case was held before me on April 9, 2015, at the offices of ADR Chambers. Mr. Navaratnam did not attend. At that Pre-Hearing, I set a new date for a Preliminary Issue Hearing for May 12, 2015. I directed that the matter would proceed as a Pre-Hearing if Mr. Navaratnam attended. If he did not attend, this matter would proceed as a Preliminary Issue Hearing at which time, State Farm would be requesting a dismissal of the Arbitration.
A letter, dated April 9, 2015, was sent to Mr. Navaratnam. In that letter, I informed Mr. Navaratnam that a Preliminary Issue Hearing was scheduled for May 12, 2015 at ADR Chambers.
Pursuant to Rules 68.1 and 68.2 of the DRPC, I notified Mr. Navaratnam that his attendance at the above mentioned Preliminary Issue Hearing was mandatory, and that the Application for Arbitration could be dismissed if he did not attend.
On May 12, 2015, the Preliminary Issue Hearing was held.
Mr. Schmoranz appeared by telephone and requested the dismissal of Mr. Navaratnam's Application for Arbitration.
I am satisfied that the notices to Mr. Navaratnam complied with the requirements of Rule 9.1(c) of the DRPC and section 6 of the Statutory Power and Procedures Act ("SPPA"). All correspondence, including the notice of the Preliminary Issue Hearing, was sent to Mr. Navaratnam's address, as noted in our records. Notwithstanding the notice, the Applicant did not attend the Preliminary Issue Hearing or provide submissions in writing.
Rule 37.9 of the DRPC states:
Where notice of hearing has been sent to a party and a party does not attend at an oral or electronic hearing, or participate in a written hearing, the arbitrator may proceed with the hearing in the party's absence or without the party's participation, as the case may be, and the party is not entitled to any further notice in the proceeding.
Pursuant to Rule 37.9 of the DRPC, the Preliminary Issue Hearing proceeded in Mr. Navaratnam's absence. Mr. Navaratnam has the onus of proof to establish his entitlement to his claims. He did not attend any of the two Pre-Hearings; therefore, I conclude that he has no interest in pursuing his claim and that he abandoned the present Arbitration proceeding.
All the above mentioned reasons suffice to dismiss Mr. Navaratnam's Application for Arbitration.
EXPENSES:
I am not making any order with respect to State Farm's expenses.
May 27, 2015
Deborah Anschell Arbitrator
Financial Services Commission of Ontario
Neutral Citation: 2015 ONFSCDRS 112 FSCO A13-015177
BETWEEN:
SIVAKANDEAPAN NAVARATNAM Applicant
and
STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY Insurer
ARBITRATION ORDER
Under section 282 of the Insurance Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.I.8, as amended, it is ordered that:
- Mr. Sivakandeapan Navaratnam's Application for Arbitration is dismissed.
May 27, 2015
Deborah Anschell Arbitrator