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

Neutral Citation: 2016 ONFSCDRS 166

FSCO A14-000479

BETWEEN:

ORSOLYA CSASZAR

Applicant

and

STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY

Insurer

REASONS FOR DECISION

Before: Arbitrator Anne Morris

Heard: In person at ADR Chambers on April 14, 2016 and by written submissions due May 10, 2016

Appearances: Ms. Orsolya Csaszar did not participate Mr. Christopher Schnarr participated for State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company

Issues:

The Applicant, Ms. Orsolya Csaszar, was injured in a motor vehicle accident on October 23, 2010 and sought 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 the Applicant, through her then 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 this Application for Arbitration be dismissed without a Hearing pursuant to Rule 68 of the Dispute Resolution Practice Code (“the Code”) because it is frivolous, vexatious or was commenced in bad faith?
Is State Farm entitled to expenses in the amount of $500.00?

Result:

The Application for Arbitration is dismissed.
State Farm is entitled to expenses in the amount of $500.00.

EVIDENCE AND ANALYSIS:

A Pre-Hearing discussion in this case was held on August 27, 2015 at the offices of ADR Chambers. At that time, Ms. Sherry Gaete, licensed paralegal, of Zayouna Law Firm, represented the Applicant. The Applicant left part way through the Pre-Hearing discussion and did not return.

The Pre-Hearing discussion was resumed by teleconference on September 15, 2015. Ms. Gaete advised that she had been unable to obtain further instructions from the Applicant. I was unable to reach the Applicant by telephone. A Hearing was scheduled for April 14 and 15, 2016 as had been discussed and agreed upon at the Pre-Hearing discussion of August 27, 2015.

The Pre-Hearing discussion was further resumed on February 18, 2016 by telephone for the purpose of hearing the request by Zayouna Law Firm to be removed as representatives of record for the Applicant. I was again unable to reach the Applicant by telephone. I was satisfied that there had been a breakdown in the solicitor- client relationship and that the requirements of Rule 9.7 of the Code had been complied with. I therefore made an Order removing Zayouna Law Firm as representatives for the Applicant and communicated same to the Applicant by registered letter, dated February 22, 2016. In that letter, I also reminded the Applicant of the Hearing scheduled to commence on April 14, 2016.

The Insurer attended the Hearing on April 14, 2016 at 10:00 a.m. The Applicant did not attend and had not attended by 10:30 a.m. I was unable to contact her by telephone. The Insurer then requested that this application be dismissed pursuant to Rule 68 of the Code. Pursuant to Rule 68, an Arbitrator may dismiss a proceeding without a Hearing where the proceeding is frivolous, vexatious or is commenced in bad faith.

I then wrote to the Applicant by letter, dated April 19, 2016, at her last known residential address and advised her that it was my intention to grant the Insurer’s request for a dismissal unless she provided reasonable grounds why I should not do so. I advised her in accordance with Rule 68 that she had until May 10, 2016 to serve upon the Insurer and to file with me, any written submissions which she wished me to consider as to why I should not dismiss her Application for Arbitration and any other concerns or issues which she may have. I advised her that if I did not receive written submissions by May 10, 2016, her Application for Arbitration could be dismissed without further notice. I also advised her that the Insurer had requested expenses in the amount of $500.00 and that I would also consider this request by the Insurer if I had not heard from her by May 10, 2016.

To date, I have received no submissions or response, written or otherwise, from the Applicant. I am advised by Mr. Schnarr that he also has not heard from the Applicant.

I do not have sufficient evidence before me to conclude that the Applicant’s application was commenced in bad faith. There is evidence, however, that the claim has now become frivolous and vexatious because of the Applicant’s failure to participate in the Arbitration process. I infer from this that she has no interest in pursuing her claims against the Insurer and has abandoned them. It would be unreasonable to force State Farm to expend more time, effort, or expense in this matter. I therefore grant State Farm’s request to dismiss this Application for Arbitration pursuant to Rule 68 of the Code.

EXPENSES:

I find the amount of $500.00 requested by the Insurer to be reasonable in the circumstances described above.

Accordingly, and pursuant to subsection 282(11) of the Insurance Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. I.8, as amended, the Applicant, Ms. Csaszar, is ordered to pay State Farm’s expenses in the amount of $500.00.

June 13, 2016

Anne Morris Arbitrator

Date

ARBITRATION ORDER