Anthony Adu-Adjei v. RBC General Insurance Company, 2015 ONFSCDRS 90

Financial Services Commission des

Commission services financiers

of Ontario de l’Ontario

Neutral Citation: 2015 ONFSCDRS 90

FSCO A13-009118

BETWEEN:

ANTHONY ADU-ADJEI

Applicant

and

RBC GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY

Insurer

DECISION ON A MOTION

Before: Alan Mervin, Arbitrator

Heard: April 22, 2015, at the offices of the Financial Services Commission of Ontario in Toronto.

Appearances: Michael Wentzel for Mr. Adu-Adjei

Jason Frost for RBC General Insurance Company

Issues:

The Applicant, Anthony Adu-Adjei, claimed he was injured in a motor vehicle accident on December 12, 2011. He applied for statutory accident benefits from RBC General Insurance Company (“RBC”), payable under the Schedule.¹ The parties were unable to resolve their disputes through mediation. Mr. Adu-Adjei then applied for arbitration at the Financial Services Commission of Ontario under the Insurance Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.I.8, as amended.

Lofranco Corriero, representatives for Mr. Adu-Adjei, have now brought this motion to be removed as solicitors of record for Mr. Adu-Adjei due to an alleged irreparable breakdown in the solicitor -client relationship.

The issues in this hearing are:

Should the law firm of Lofranco Corriero be removed as Mr. Adu-Adjei’s representatives of record?

Result:

The firm of Lofranco Corriero is removed as Mr. Adu-Adjei’s representative of record.

EVIDENCE AND ANALYSIS:

On November 27, 2014, the Applicant’s representative, Michael Ferrante of the law firm LoFranco, Corriero, submitted a Motion Record dated November 25, 2014, requesting an order that they be removed as the representative of record for Mr. Adu-Adjei, because there had been a breakdown of the solicitor-client relationship.

The motion was scheduled to be heard on April 22, 2015, prior to the commencement of a pre-hearing scheduled to take place at the same time.

The motion materials alleged that the Applicant, after having reached agreement with his representatives on how the matter was to proceed, then refused to proceed with the recommendations of his representatives. This, as well as an inablility to contact and receive instructions from the Applicant, resulted in a breakdown of communications and a material breakdown of the solicitor-client relationship.

Mr. Michael Wentzel appeared on behalf of Lofranco, Corriero at the hearing of the Motion, as did Mr. Jason Frost, solicitor for the Insurer. The Applicant did not appear, despite having been served with the motion materials by courier on November 25, 2014, at his last known address.

The Insurer did not oppose the motion for removal. Mr. Wentzel advised that in addition to the motion materials, Lofranco Corriero sent a registered letter to the Applicant on November 14, 2014 advising that no further steps were to be taken in his case and that Lofranco Corriero were seeking removal as solicitors of record.

Mr. Wentzel further advised that the last contact his firm had with the Applicant was on October 8, 2014, and despite further attempts to contact him, had heard nothing since. He also advised that the firm sent a letter to the Applicant on March 15, 2015 advising that the firm was taking legal action against the Applicant.

RBC advised that it sent a letter dated December 2, 2014 to the Applicant via regular mail to his last known address, requesting that the applicant contact the Insurer to advise whether he had obtained new representation, to provide outstanding documentary productions, and to confirm that he would be attending at the motion and pre-hearing. They received no response.

A Notice of Hearing regarding the motion, and a Notice of Pre-hearing were served on the Applicant at his last known address, but neither FSCO, the Applicant’s representative, or the Insurer has had any communication from the Applicant.

Mr. Wentzel confirmed that the Applicant’s last known address was the same as those contained in the Commission Records.

THE LAW

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.

The motion record contained a letter from Lofranco Corriero dated November 25, 2014, sent by fax to the Applicant, which confirms in writing the last known address, telephone number and email address of the Applicant.

Therefore, on the evidence presented, I am satisfied that the firm of Lofranco, Correiro and Mr. Michael Ferrante, the solicitor who had carriage of this case, have lost communication with the Applicant, that there has been a material breakdown in the solicitor- client relationship, and that they have complied with Rule 9.7 of the DRPC.

Lofranco Corriero’s request to be removed as solicitors of record for Mr. Adu- Adjei in this Arbitration proceeding is granted.

EXPENSES:

As no order for expenses was requested by either party, I make no order as to expenses with respect to this motion.

April 28, 2015

Alan Mervin

Arbitrator

Date