Gurdeep Singh Gill and Baljit Kaur Gill v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, 2015 ONFSCDRS 22

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

Neutral Citation: 2015 ONFSCDRS 22

FSCO A13-000396 and A13-000397

BETWEEN:

GURDEEP SINGH GILL and BALJIT KAUR GILL

Applicants

and

STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY

Insurer

REASONS FOR DECISION

Before: Robert Bujold

Heard: January 19, 2015, at the offices of the Financial Services Commission of Ontario in Toronto.

Appearances: Mr. and Mrs. Gill did not appear Mr. Ahmadreza Bazyar for Bazyar Legal Services Jonathan Schrieder for State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company

Issues:

The Applicants, Gurdeep Singh Gill and Baljit Kaur Gill, claimed to have been injured in a motor vehicle accident on September 22, 2010. They applied for statutory accident benefits from the Insurer, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company ("State Farm"), payable under the Schedule.¹ Issues arose regarding the Applicants' entitlement to certain benefits. The parties were unable to resolve their disputes through mediation, and Mr. and Mrs. Gill applied for arbitration at the Financial Services Commission of Ontario under the *Insurance Act*, R.S.O. 1990, c.I.8, as amended.

The issues in this hearing are:

Should the Applicants' claims be dismissed?

Result:

The Applicants' claims are dismissed.
The Applicants shall each pay $1,500.00 toward State Farm's expenses of the arbitration.

EVIDENCE AND ANALYSIS:

Background:

These matters first came before me for hearing on August 25, 2014. At that time, the Applicants' representative, Mr. Ahmadreza Bazyar of Bazyar Legal Services, had been called out-of-country on a personal emergency and Mr. Asghar Shoghi of his office attended to request an adjournment. The Applicants were not in attendance. The hearing was adjourned to January 19, 2015, at 10:00 am. The adjournment was peremptory to the Applicants, and State Farm was awarded its expenses of the adjournment to be determined at the conclusion of the hearing. State Farm also raised concerns with the state of productions and Mr. Shoghi undertook to use best efforts to complete production exchange by November 30, 2014.

A Notice of Hearing dated August 26, 2014, confirming the new hearing date of January 19, 2015, was sent to each of the Applicants at their last known address.

By correspondence dated December 19, 2014, Mr. Bazyar wrote to the Commission to advise that he had been unable to get his clients to meet with him to discuss productions or the upcoming hearing. In short, they were no longer cooperating with him. As a result, Mr. Bazyar requested that he be permitted to withdraw as the Applicants' representative. Mr. Bazyar was advised to renew his request at the January 19, 2015 hearing. The request would be considered prior to the commencement of the hearing. As the Applicants had been advised by the Notice of Hearing to attend on January 19, 2015, the appointment would provide them with the opportunity to respond in person to Mr. Bazyar's request to withdraw as their representative.

The Arbitration Hearing:

The Applicants did not attend at the offices of the Commission on January 19, 2015, at 10:00 a.m. as required by the Notice of Hearing. By 10:30 a.m., the Applicants had still not appeared.

Pursuant to Rule 37.7 of the Dispute Resolution Practice Code, and being satisfied that each Applicant had been properly served at their last known address with the Notice of Hearing, the arbitration hearing proceeded in the Applicants' absence.

At the outset of the hearing, Mr. Bazyar's renewed his request to withdraw as the Applicants' representative. After reviewing several letters that Mr. Bazyar had sent to the Applicants, and upon hearing Mr. Bazyar's submissions, I was satisfied that there had been a serious breakdown in the representative-client relationship, and I permitted Mr. Bazyar to withdraw as the Applicants' representative.

The matter then proceed to hearing. As neither Applicant attended to present any evidence, each failed to establish their entitlement to the benefits claimed. The Applicants' claims were therefore dismissed.

EXPENSES:

On hearing the submissions of counsel for State Farm, I find that Mr. and Mr. Gill shall each pay $1,500.00 toward State Farm's expenses of the arbitration.

February 6, 2015

Robert Bujold Date Arbitrator