Feynous Adam Ahmad v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, 2016 ONFSCDRS 258

Financial Services Commission des

Commission services financiers

of Ontario de l’Ontario

Neutral Citation: 2016 ONFSCDRS 258

FSCO A15-008614

BETWEEN:

Feynous Adam Ahmad

Applicant

and

State Farm Mutual Automobile INSURANCE COMPANY

Insurer

REASONS FOR DECISION

Before: Arbitrator Marcel D. Mongeon

Heard: By telephone conference call on August 24, 2016

Appearances: Ms. Feynous Adam Ahmad did not participate

Ms. Emma Katz participated for State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company

A Somali language translator was available

Issues:

The Applicant, Ms. Feynous Adam Ahmad, was injured in a motor vehicle accident on May 22, 2011 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 Ms. Adam Ahmad, 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 issue in this Hearing is:

Should the Applicant’s Application for Arbitration be dismissed?

Result:

The Applicant’s Application for Arbitration is dismissed.

EVIDENCE AND ANALYSIS:

Chronology

A Pre-Hearing discussion in this case was held on July 21, 2016, at which the Applicant failed to appear. At that time, the Applicant’s previous representative advised of its request to withdraw as the Applicant’s representative. I granted the representative’s request and made an appropriate Order.

On July 21, 2016, I sent a letter to the Applicant at her last known address to advise her of the missed Pre-Hearing discussion and that her representative had withdrawn from the record. The letter provided the Applicant with an Attendance Notice, setting a date of August 24, 2016 at 4:00 p.m. by telephone conference, 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 would dismiss her Application for Arbitration.

The Dismissal

For the reasons that follow, the Applicant’s Application for Arbitration is dismissed.

On August 24, 2016 at 4:10 p.m., I attempted two times to contact the Applicant at her last known telephone number. The telephone was answered by voicemail. I had the Somali interpreter leave a message for the Applicant to call ADR Chambers.

In addition, as of August 24, 2016 at close of business, I had not heard from any new legal representative on the Applicant’s behalf.

I am satisfied that the Applicant was given notice of all of the proceedings related to her Application for Arbitration at her last known address. I am also satisfied that at the time of the Hearing, the Applicant did not answer her last known telephone number at the time appointed for the Hearing.

Pursuant to Rule 37.7 of the Dispute Resolution Practice Code, the Arbitration Hearing proceeded in the absence of the Applicant.

The Applicant 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 claim, this Arbitration is dismissed.

EXPENSES:

No expenses are awarded.

September 26, 2016

Marcel D. Mongeon

Arbitrator

Date