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

Neutral Citation: 2015 ONFSCDRS 236

FSCO A14-009887

BETWEEN:

JADE SMITH

Applicant

and

PRIMMUM INSURANCE CO.

Insurer

Before: Arbitrator Kimberly Parish

Heard: By teleconference call on August 25, 2015

Appearances:

Ms. Jade Smith did not participate Ms. Veronika Hamza for Ms. Jade Smith Mr. Andrew Papadimitropoulos for Primmum Insurance Co.

Issues:

The Applicant, Ms. Jade Smith, was injured in a motor vehicle accident on May 15, 2012 and sought accident benefits from Primmum Insurance Co. (“Primmum”), payable under the Schedule.¹ The parties were unable to resolve their disputes through mediation, and Ms. Smith, through her representative, 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 Motion are:

Should the law firm, Jewell Radimisis Jorge LLP, be removed from the record as Ms. Smith’s legal representative?
Should Ms. Smith’s Application for Arbitration be dismissed?
Is Primmum entitled to their expenses in preparing for and attending the Arbitration proceedings from Ms. Smith, and if so in what amount?

Result:

The law firm, Jewell Radimisis Jorge LLP, is removed from the record as Ms. Smith’s legal representative.
Ms. Smith’s Application for Arbitration is dismissed.
Primmum is not seeking expenses in this matter.

EVIDENCE AND ANALYSIS:

Chronology

On June 23, 2015, a letter was sent to Primmum Insurance Company from Michelle Jorge of Jewell Radimisis Jorge LLP, stating that there had been a complete breakdown in the solicitor-client relationship and that Jewell Radimisis Jorge LLP would no longer be able to act on behalf of Ms. Smith.

On June 24, 2015, I received a Motion in writing from Jewell Radimisis Jorge LLP requesting they be removed from the record as Ms. Smith’s, legal representative. The letter states that the firm, Jewell Radimisis Jorge LLP had been unable to reach Ms. Smith for several months and stated there had been a breakdown in the solicitor-client relationship. This letter contained the last known address and contact information for Ms. Smith.

On July 13, 2015, a Pre-Hearing discussion in this case was scheduled to take place via telephone conference in which Ms. Smith failed to participate. Ms. Hamza, legal counsel, represented Ms. Smith, on behalf of Ms. Michelle Jorge of Jewell Radimisis Jorge LLP. Mr. Papadimitropoulos of Blouin Dunn LLP represented Primmum.

Ms. Hamza made oral submissions on behalf of Jewell Radimisis Jorge LLP, requesting that Michelle Jorge of Jewell Radimisis Jorge LLP be removed as the lawyer of record as their firm had been unsuccessful in establishing contact with Ms. Smith and stated there had been a breakdown in the solicitor-client relationship.

Mr. Papadimitropoulos made oral submissions stating that due to Ms. Smith lack of availability for the Pre-Hearing and her non-participation in this Arbitration process, the Insurer may be requesting this claim to be dismissed with costs.

The matter was rescheduled for August 25, 2015 at 9:00 a.m., to be heard by telephone conference. A letter, dated July 14, 2015, was sent to Ms. Smith with an Attendance Notice, setting a date of August 25, 2015 at 9:00 a.m., to hear the above issues in dispute, information regarding the proceedings, recovery of legal expenses and the adjournment policy. The letter also advised Ms. Smith that if she does not contact the office of ADR Chambers or participate in any further proceedings, it could result in her claim being dismissed and I would consider Primmum’s request for expenses. This matter was heard as a Motion.

Decision

As of August 25, 2015, I was unable to contact Ms. Smith; she had yet to contact her legal representative or ADR Chambers as requested and has not participated in any of the Arbitration proceedings. I have therefore granted Jewell Radimisis Jorge LLP’s request to be removed from the record.

Rule 68 of the Dispute Resolution Practice Code (“the DRPC”) permits an Arbitrator to dismiss a proceeding without a Hearing where the proceeding is frivolous, vexatious or is commenced in bad faith, providing written notice has been given to the parties of the intention to dismiss the proceedings.

I am satisfied that Ms. Smith was given notice of the proceedings as required by Rule 68(2) of the DRPC at her last known address contained in the records of the Dispute Resolution Group, as required by Rule 5.7 of the DRPC.

I am satisfied that Ms. Smith was given opportunity to make submissions should she wish to object to the dismissal as required by Rule 68(3) of the DRPC.

I am also satisfied that there is no prejudice to Ms. Smith in dismissing her Application for Arbitration. Therefore, Ms. Smith’s Application for Arbitration is dismissed without a Hearing under Rule 68(1) of the DRPC on the basis that the application was frivolous, vexatious or was commenced in bad faith as she failed to participate in the proceedings.

EXPENSES:

Primmum stated they are not seeking costs in this matter.

November 6, 2015

Kimberly Parish Arbitrator

Date