Lyschin Smith v. Coseco Insurance Co./HB Group/Direct Protect, 2015 ONFSCDRS 121

Financial Services Commission des

Commission services financiers

of Ontario de l’Ontario

Neutral Citation: 2015 ONFSCDRS 121

FSCO A14-003745

BETWEEN:

LYSCHIN SMITH

Applicant

and

COSECO INSURANCE CO./HB GROUP/DIRECT PROTECT

Insurer

REASONS FOR DECISION

Before: Arbitrator Jeffrey Rogers

Heard: May 29, 2015, at the offices of the Financial Services Commission of Ontario in Toronto.

Appearances: Mr. Lev Raskin for P&M Professional Corporation, seeking removal from the record as Ms. Smith’s representative

No one appearing for Ms. Smith

Ms. Emily Schatzker, solicitor for Coseco Insurance Co./HB Group/Direct Protect

Issues:

Should P&M Professional Corporation be removed from the record as Ms. Smith’s representative?
Should this arbitration be dismissed because Ms. Smith has failed to participate in the process?
Is Coseco Insurance Co./HB Group/Direct Protect entitled to its expenses of the arbitration, and if so, in what amount?

Result:

P&M Professional Corporation is removed from the record as Ms. Smith’s representative.
This arbitration is dismissed.
Ms. Smith shall pay Coseco Insurance Co./HB Group/Direct Protect its expenses of the arbitration in the amount of $500.

EVIDENCE AND ANALYSIS:

The Applicant, Lyschin Smith, was injured in a motor vehicle accident on April 3, 2012. She applied for and received statutory accident benefits from Coseco Insurance Co./HB Group/Direct Protect (“Coseco”), payable under the Schedule.¹ Coseco disputed Ms. Smith’s entitlement to further benefits she claimed. The parties were unable to resolve their disputes through mediation, and Ms. Smith applied for arbitration at the Financial Services Commission of Ontario under the Insurance Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.I.8, as amended. She claimed entitlement to further medical benefits.

A pre-hearing discussion was held before me on April 28, 2015. Ms. Smith did not attend.

Mr. Lev Raskin attended on behalf of P&M Professional Corporation, Ms. Smith’s representative of record. He advised that his firm had no instructions from Ms. Smith and that he had lost contact with his client. He indicated that he would be seeking removal from the record. He also confirmed that the Notice of Pre-Hearing was sent to Ms. Smith’s last known address. I proceeded with the pre-hearing and set this hearing date.

I wrote to Ms. Smith informing her that her representative was seeking to be removed from the record. I also informed her that, if she did not attend the hearing the arbitration would likely be dismissed and she may be ordered to part of Coseco’s expenses incurred in responding to her claim. Ms. Smith did not attend the hearing and has not communicated with the Commission or with P&M Professional Corporation.

I am satisfied that Ms. Smith was given proper notice of the hearing and of P&M Professional Corporation’s motion to be removed from the record. I am satisfied that there has been a breakdown in the relationship between Ms. Smith and P&M Professional Corporation, justifying its removal from the record as Ms. Smith’s representative.

Ms. Smith appears to have lost interest in pursuing this arbitration. She bears the onus of proving entitlement to the benefits she claimed. No evidence having been presented at the hearing in support of her claims, this arbitration is dismissed.

EXPENSES:

Coseco claimed its expenses of the arbitration in the amount of $500. I find that Coseco is entitled to its expenses, based on its complete success. I find the amount claimed to be reasonable.

Ms. Smith is therefore ordered to pay Coseco its expenses of the arbitration in the amount of $500.

June 4, 2015

Jeffrey Rogers Date

Arbitrator