Beata Wright v. Personal Insurance Company of Canada, 2016 ONFSCDRS 29

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

Neutral Citation: 2016 ONFSCDRS 29

FSCO A14-008095

BETWEEN:

BEATA WRIGHT

Applicant

and

PERSONAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF CANADA

Insurer

DECISION ON A MOTION

Before: Dana Hirsh

Heard: October 8, 2015, at the offices of the Financial Services Commission of Ontario in Toronto

Appearances: Lev Raskin for Ms. Wright Conor Wyche for Personal Insurance Company of Canada

Background:

The Applicant, Beata Wright, claims to have been injured in a motor vehicle accident on March 12, 2012. She applied for statutory accident benefits from Personal Insurance Company of Canada (“Personal”), payable under the Schedule.¹ Disputes arose between the parties concerning the Applicant’s entitlement to certain benefits. The parties were unable to resolve their disputes through mediation, and Ms. Wright applied for arbitration at the Financial Services Commission of Ontario under the Insurance Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.I.8, as amended.

The Application for Arbitration was filed on October 10, 2014 on behalf of the Applicant by Lev Raskin, licensed paralegal with the firm P&M Personal Injury Law (“P&M”). The Insurer filed its Response on or about November 3, 2014. According to the record, a pre-hearing conference took place on July 23, 2015 at the offices of the Financial Services Commission of Ontario. Although Mr. Raskin attended the pre-hearing discussion, the Applicant failed to attend. In her pre-hearing letter of July 23, 2015, the presiding arbitrator (Arbitrator Muzzi) noted that Mr. Raskin intended on bringing a motion for an order that both he and P&M be removed as the legal representatives of record for the Applicant.

A resumption of pre-hearing discussion took place before me at the offices of the Financial Services Commission of Ontario on September 11, 2015. Again, the Applicant failed to attend. Mr. Wyche, legal counsel, represented Personal. Mr. Raskin brought a motion pursuant to Rule 9 of the Dispute Resolution Practice Code (Fourth Edition, Updated-January 2014) (the “Code”) for an order permitting him and P&M to withdraw from the proceeding as the Applicant’s legal representatives of record. In order to ensure that Ms. Wright received notice of the motion, and to provide Mr. Raskin with sufficient time to ensure compliance with Rule 9.7 of the Code, I adjourned the motion, and notified the parties that I would hear the motion prior to the hearing on October 8, 2015.

THIS MOTION IS FOR:

An order permitting Lev Raskin and P&M Personal Injury Law to withdraw from this proceeding as the legal representatives of record for the Applicant.

Result:

Lev Raskin and P&M Personal Injury Law are permitted to withdraw from this proceeding as the legal representatives of record for the Applicant.

EVIDENCE AND ANALYSIS:

Pursuant to Rule 9.7 of the Code, 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; and,

(b) provide the last known address, telephone number and (if any) e-mail address of the represented party.

Notice of this motion was sent to the last known address of the Applicant by regular mail by both the moving party and FSCO. The Applicant did not attend. Personal is taking no position with respect to this motion. The Applicant did not file any material or partake in any other manner. Thus, this motion was uncontested.

Based upon the material filed in support of this motion, and the oral submissions of Mr. Raskin, I find that there has been a breakdown of the solicitor-client relationship between the Applicant and P&M as well as Mr. Raskin, and that Mr. Raskin and P&M currently have no meaningful instructions from the Applicant regarding this arbitration proceeding.

Taking all of these circumstances into consideration, I find it appropriate to grant this motion.

On October 8, 2015, I announced my decision orally and advised Mr. Raskin and Mr. Wyche that a formal written order would be issued in due course.

January 19, 2016

Dana Hirsh Arbitrator

Date