Jasmine Abdi v. Royal & SunAlliance Insurance Company of Canada, 2017 ONFSCDRS 19

Financial Services Commission des

Commission services financiers

of Ontario de l’Ontario

Neutral Citation: 2017 ONFSCDRS 19

FSCO A16-003370

BETWEEN:

JASMINE ABDI

Applicant

and

ROYAL & SUNALLIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY OF CANADA

Insurer

REASONS FOR DECISION

Before: Arbitrator Anne Morris

Heard: By teleconference call on November 29, 2016

Appearances: Mrs. Jasmine Abdi did not participate

Ms. Nastassia Ivanova participated for Mrs. Jasmine Abdi

Ms. Joanna Cox participated for Royal & SunAlliance Insurance Company of Canada

Issues:

The Applicant, Mrs. Jasmine Abdi, was injured in a motor vehicle accident on September 29, 2014 and sought accident benefits from Royal & SunAlliance Insurance Company of Canada (“Royal”) payable under the Schedule.¹ The parties were unable to resolve their disputes through mediation, and Mrs. Abdi, 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 the law firm of Diamond & Diamond be removed as representatives of record for Mrs. Abdi?
Should Mrs. Abdi’s Application for Arbitration be dismissed?
Is either party entitled to its expenses of the Hearing and, if so, in what amount?

Result:

The law firm of Diamond & Diamond is removed as representatives of record for Mrs. Abdi.
Mrs. Abdi’s Application for Arbitration is dismissed.
Mrs. Abdi shall pay expenses to Royal in the amount of $750.00.

EVIDENCE AND ANALYSIS:

Chronology

A Pre-Hearing discussion in this case was held on October 28, 2016, at which time the Applicant, Mrs. Abdi, failed to appear.

The Applicant’s representative advised that the law firm of Diamond & Diamond had lost contact with Mrs. Abdi despite efforts to contact her by telephone, in writing and in person. The Applicant’s counsel requested that the law firm be removed from the record as representative for the Applicant.

I advised that the Motion for removal from the record would be heard at the Hearing upon evidence of compliance with Rule 9.7 of the Dispute Resolution Practice Code (“the DRPC”).

On November 2, 2016, I sent a letter to Mrs. Abdi at her last known address to advise her of the missed Pre-Hearing discussion. The letter provided Mrs. Abdi with a Notice of Hearing, setting a date of November 29, 2016 at 11:15 a.m., 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 and consider Royal’s request for expenses.

Motion for Removal from the Record

I am satisfied on the evidence that the law firm of Diamond & Diamond has complied with Rule 9.7 of the DRPC. I am also satisfied that there has been a breakdown in the solicitor/client relationship as evidenced by inability of the law firm to contact or communicate with the Applicant. The law firm of Diamond & Diamond is removed as representatives of record for the Applicant.

The Dismissal

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

As of November 29, 2016, I was unable to contact Mrs. Abdi. She had yet to contact her legal representative or ADR Chambers as requested, and had not participated in any of the Arbitration proceedings.

I am satisfied that Mrs. Abdi 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.

Mrs. Abdi 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:

In all of the circumstances, Royal is entitled to its reasonable expenses in the amount of $750.00.

January 23, 2017

Anne Morris

Arbitrator

Date