Financial Services Commission des
Commission services financiers
of Ontario de l’Ontario
Neutral Citation: 2015 ONFSCDRS 242
FSCO A14-008069
BETWEEN:
OSMAN BILLOO
Applicant
and
STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY
Insurer
DECISION ON A PRELIMINARY ISSUE
Before: Arbitrator Deborah Anschell
Heard: By telephone conference call on September 24, 2015
Appearances: Mr. Osman Billoo did not participate
Mr. Josh R. Knox participated for State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company
Issues:
The Applicant, Mr. Osman Billoo, was injured in a motor vehicle accident on July 2, 2011. He applied for statutory accident benefits from State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (“State Farm”) payable under the Schedule.1 The parties were unable to resolve their disputes through mediation, and Mr. Billoo 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 Preliminary Hearing are:
Should Mr. Osman Billoo’s Application for Arbitration be dismissed?
Is State Farm entitled to its expenses?
Result:
Mr. Osman Billoo’s Application for Arbitration is dismissed.
There is no order with respect to costs.
EVIDENCE AND ANALYSIS:
Removal from the Record
On August 18, 2015, Zayouna Law Firm, the Applicant’s Counsel, submitted a Motion to be removed as the counsel of record, because they were unable to obtain instructions from the Applicant.
Mr. Knox, State Farm’s Counsel, did not oppose the Motion.
Rule 9.7 of the Dispute Resolution Practice Code (“the 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 granted Zayouna Law Firm’s request to be removed as counsel of record.
Dismissal of the Claim
The Applicant submitted an Application for Arbitration on October 9, 2014. He did not attend either of the two Pre-Hearings held before me on July 7, 2015 and August 18, 2015.
A letter, dated July 7, 2015, was sent by regular mail to Mr. Billoo. In that letter, I informed Mr. Billoo that a resumption was to take place before me on Tuesday, August 18, 2015, by way of teleconference. Further, I advised that the Applicant’s Counsel would be seeking an order removing the firm as the representative of record.
A further letter, dated August 18, 2015, was sent by regular mail to Mr. Billoo. In that letter I advised that a Preliminary Issue Hearing was scheduled for September 24, 2015, by way of teleconference. I advised that it was imperative for Mr. Billoo to contact me before that date with his current telephone number. Mr. Billoo did not contact me at any time. I also advised that if Mr. Billoo did not participate, the matter would proceed as a Preliminary Issue Hearing at which time State Farm would request a dismissal of the Application for Arbitration.
On August 18, 2015, Mr. Knox attended on behalf of State Farm and requested the dismissal of Mr. Billoo’s Application for Arbitration and State Farm’s expenses of this proceeding.
I am satisfied that the notices to Mr. Billoo complied with the requirements of Rule 9.1(c) of the DRPC and section 6 of the Statutory Power and Procedures Act. All correspondence, including the notice of the Preliminary Issue Hearing, was sent to Mr. Billoo’s address, as noted in our records. Notwithstanding the notices and letters, 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. Billoo’s absence. Mr. Billoo has the onus of proof to establish his entitlement to his claims. He did not attend any of the proceedings; therefore, I conclude that he has no interest in pursuing his claim and that he abandoned the present Application for Arbitration.
All the above mentioned reasons suffice to dismiss Mr. Billoo’s Application for Arbitration.
EXPENSES:
I have exercised my discretion pursuant to subsection 282(11) of the Insurance Act, and am making no order with respect to costs.
November 16, 2015
Deborah Anschell
Arbitrator
Date
Financial Services Commission des
Commission services financiers
of Ontario de l’Ontario
Neutral Citation: 2015 ONFSCDRS 242
FSCO A14-008069
BETWEEN:
OSMAN BILLOO
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. Osman Billoo’s Application for Arbitration is dismissed.
November 16, 2015
Deborah Anschell
Arbitrator
Date
Footnotes
- The Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule - Effective September 1, 2010, Ontario Regulation 34/10, as amended.