Financial Services Commission des

Commission services financiers

of Ontario de l’Ontario

Neutral Citation: 2016 ONFSCDRS 91

FSCO A14-000708

BETWEEN:

NATASHA DE ROUCHE

Applicant

and

PAFCO INSURANCE COMPANY

Insurer

Before: Arbitrator Janet Davies

Heard: By teleconference on January 26, 2016

Appearances:

Ms. Natasha De Rouche did not participate

Mr. Paul Druxerman, legal counsel, participated on behalf of Ms. Natasha De Rouche

Mr. Ravinder Chahal, legal counsel, participated on behalf of Pafco Insurance Company

Issues:

The Applicant, Ms. Natasha De Rouche was injured in a motor vehicle accident on January 30, 2012 and sought accident benefits from Pafco Insurance Company (“Pafco”), payable under the Schedule.¹ The parties were unable to resolve their disputes through mediation, and Ms. De. Rouche, through her legal 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 Motion are:

Should Mr. Paul Druxerman and Chew Law Firm Professional Corporation be removed from the record as counsel for Ms. Natasha De Rouche?
Should Ms. Natasha De Rouche’s Application for Arbitration be dismissed without costs?

Result:

Mr. Paul Druxerman and Chew Law Firm Professional Corporation are removed from the record as Ms. Natasha De Rouche’s legal counsel.
Ms. Natasha De Rouche’s Application for Arbitration is dismissed without costs.

EVIDENCE AND ANALYSIS:

On January 21, 2014, an Application for Arbitration was filed on behalf of Ms. De Rouche by her legal counsel, Mr. Paul Druxerman from Chew Law Firm Professional Corporation.

A Pre-Hearing discussion was scheduled for June 17, 2015 at 12:00 p.m., at the offices of ADR Chambers. Mr. Druxerman participated on behalf of his client, Ms. De Rouche, who did not attend. Mr. Chahal attended for the Insurer, Pafco. As his client was not in attendance, Mr. Druxerman requested more time to contact his client to receive instructions as she has failed to attend scheduled appointments. This was agreed to by the Insurer and the Pre-Hearing discussion was rescheduled to December 1, 2015 and was peremptory on Ms. De Rouche attending. On November 18, 2015, I received a copy of a letter sent to Ms. De Rouche from the Chew Law Firm Professional Corporation on behalf of Mr. Druxerman advising her that they would no longer continue to represent her and to seek alternate counsel.

On December 1, 2015, Mr. Druxerman attended the Pre-Hearing as did Mr. Chahal for Pafco. Ms. De Rouche did not attend. At that time, Mr. Druxerman advised that his client had failed to attend his office and of his intention to file a Motion to be removed from the record as counsel due to a break down in the client-solicitor relationship. Mr. Chahal requested that Ms. De Rouche’s Application for Arbitration be dismissed as she has not participated in the Arbitration process.

On December 9, 2015, Mr. Chahal filed a written request to have Ms. De Rouche’s Application for Arbitration dismissed. On December 17, 2015, Mr. Druxerman filed his request to be removed as counsel of record.

On December 18, 2015, I sent a letter to Ms. De Rouche, at her last known address, to advise her of the Motions scheduled to be heard on January 26, 2016 at 11:00 a.m., by telephone conference call. She was advised to call our office or that of her legal counsel with her contact information or instructions on how she wished to proceed.

Decision

The Motions were heard on January 26, 2016 at 11:00 a.m., by telephone conference call. At 10:30 a.m., prior to the commencement of the Motion, I was able to contact Ms. De Rouche at the telephone number provided by her counsel to remind her of the pending Motions. She advised me at that time she told her lawyer that she had no interest in pursuing her Application for Arbitration and did not want to be bothered further. I asked that she confirm her wishes to withdraw her claim by e-mail to me in time for the discussion so it could be considered. She said she would as soon as she got to her computer. I notified both counsel of her position by e-mail. At the time of my conversation with Ms. De Rouche, I confirmed her address to ensure she had been properly served with any and all correspondence advising her of the proceedings. As I had not heard from her by the scheduled time, I attempted to conference her in for the discussion. She did not pick up. Mr. Druxerman also stated he attempted several times that morning to contact Ms. De Rouche without success. As of this writing, Ms. De Rouche has not responded to my request for written confirmation she no longer wished to proceed with her Application for Arbitration.

I am satisfied there has been a breakdown in the client-solicitor relationship between Ms. De Rouche and her legal counsel, Mr. Druxerman and by extension, Chew Law Firm Professional Corporation. As a result, Mr. Druxerman and Chew Law Firm Professional Corporation are removed as counsel of record.

Rule 68 of the Dispute Resolution Practice Code (“the DRPC”) permits an Arbitrator to dismiss a proceeding without a Hearing where the proceeding is frivolous, vexatious or is commenced in bad faith providing written notice has been given to the parties of the intention to dismiss the proceedings.

I am satisfied Ms. De Rouche was given notice of the proceedings as required by Rule 68(2) of the DRPC at her last known address contained in the records of the Dispute Resolution Group, as required by Rule 5.7 of the DRPC and the Motion filed by her legal representative and further confirmed during my telephone conversation with her on January 26, 2016.

I am satisfied that Ms. De Rouche was given an opportunity to make submissions should she wish to object to the dismissal as required by Rule 68(3) of the DRPC.

I am also satisfied there is no undue prejudice to Ms. De Rouche in dismissing her Application for Arbitration.

As Ms. De Rouche has not participated in any of the Arbitration proceedings, despite being peremptory on her, and further to my conversation with her on January 26, 2016, I am satisfied that Ms. De Rouche no longer wishes to proceed with her Application for Arbitration. As a result, her Application for Arbitration is dismissed without a Hearing under Rule 68(1) of the DRPC on the basis that the application was frivolous, vexatious or was commenced in bad faith as she failed to participate wholly in the proceedings.

EXPENSES:

State Farm waived their request for expenses.

March 21, 2016

Janet Davies Arbitrator

Date