Financial Services Commission des
Commission services financiers
of Ontario de l’Ontario
Neutral Citation: 2016 ONFSCDRS 132
FSCO A14-005996
BETWEEN:
IRIS JONES
Applicant
and
INTACT INSURANCE COMPANY
Insurer
REASONS FOR DECISION
Before: Arbitrator Benjamin Drory
Heard: By teleconference on April 19, 2016
Appearances: Ms. Iris Jones did not participate
Ms. Soni Bal participated for Intact Insurance Company
Issues:
The Applicant, Ms. Iris Jones, was injured in a motor vehicle accident on April 9, 2012 and sought accident benefits from Intact Insurance Company (“Intact”), payable under the Schedule.1 The parties were unable to resolve their disputes through mediation, and Ms. Jones, 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 Hearing are:
Should Ms. Jones’ Application for Arbitration be dismissed?
Is Intact entitled to its expenses of the proceeding?
Result:
Ms. Jones’ Application for Arbitration is dismissed.
Both parties are invited to independently submit written submissions to me respecting expenses, within 30 days of the date of this decision.
EVIDENCE AND ANALYSIS:
Chronology
A Pre-Hearing discussion in this case was held at the offices of ADR Chambers on March 15, 2016 at 11:30 a.m., at which Ms. Jones failed to appear. At that time, Ms. Jones’ legal representative at the time, Ms. Volha Vinahradava of P&M Professional Corporation, orally requested to be removed from the record as Ms. Jones’ representative, on the basis of a breakdown in the solicitor-client relationship. I was unable to grant an Order on that point at that time, as Ms. Vinahradava’s request did not comply with Rule 9.7 of the Dispute Resolution Practice Code (“the DRPC”) (i.e., that such a request must be submitted in writing). However, I advised her that if she would submit the request in writing subsequently in accordance with the form mandated, I would consider it.
That same day, I sent a letter to Ms. Jones at her last known address to advise her of the missed Pre-Hearing discussion. The letter provided Ms. Jones with an Attendance Notice, setting a date of April 19, 2016 starting at 10:00 a.m., by teleconference, to hear the issues identified in the Application for Arbitration. The letter also advised her that should she not contact our office or participate in any further proceedings, I might dismiss her Application for Arbitration and consider Intact’s request for expenses. The letter further made clear that I anticipated a Motion from Ms. Vinahradava regarding her off the record request and that, if granted, Ms. Jones would still be responsible to attend at the Hearing on April 19, 2016, otherwise her Application for Arbitration may be dismissed and Intact’s expenses of the Arbitration proceeding may be awarded against her.
Motion to be Removed from the Record
I subsequently received a written Motion, with supporting material, from Ms. Vinahradava on March 19, 2016. I was satisfied that there had been a breakdown in the solicitor-client relationship. By letter, dated March 22, 2016, I ordered P&M Professional Corporation removed from the record as Ms. Jones’ legal representative and to consider Ms. Jones unrepresented. I reiterated again in this letter that Ms. Jones remained responsible to participate in the teleconference on April 19, 2016, or else her Application for Arbitration may be dismissed and Intact’s expenses of the Arbitration proceeding may be awarded against her.
The Dismissal
For the reasons that follow, Ms. Jones’ Application for Arbitration is dismissed.
Ms. Jones did not participate in the teleconference on April 19, 2016. I called her last known number in the Financial Services Commission of Ontario’s registration database on three occasions – at 10:00 a.m., 10:13 a.m. and 10:30 a.m. On the first of these occasions, I was told that I had the wrong number; and on the third occasion. I was advised that nobody by Ms. Jones’ name lived at that address. The middle call went unanswered.
I am satisfied that Ms. Jones was given notice of all of the proceedings related to her Application for Arbitration at her last known address.
Pursuant to Rule 37.7 of the DRPC, the Arbitration Hearing proceeded in her absence.
Ms. Jones bears the onus of proving entitlement to the claimed benefits. Since she did not appear at the Hearing and no evidence was presented to support her claims, this Application for Arbitration is dismissed.
EXPENSES:
Both parties are invited to submit written submissions to my attention, via ADR Chambers, within 30 days of the date of this Order, respecting what (if any) they believe would be an appropriate award of expenses in this matter, pursuant to Rule 75 of the DRPC.
May 2, 2016
Benjamin Drory
Arbitrator
Date
Financial Services Commission des
Commission services financiers
of Ontario de l’Ontario
Neutral Citation: 2016 ONFSCDRS 132
FSCO A14-005996
BETWEEN:
IRIS JONES
Applicant
and
INTACT 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:
Ms. Jones’ Application for Arbitration is dismissed.
Both parties are invited to independently submit written submissions to me respecting expenses, within 30 days of the date of this decision.
May 2, 2016
Benjamin Drory
Arbitrator
Date
Footnotes
- The Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule - Effective September 1, 2010, Ontario Regulation 34/10, as amended.