Nargis Zaidi Mann v. TD Home and Auto Insurance Company, 2017 ONFSCDRS 331

Financial Services Commission des

Commission services financiers

of Ontario de l’Ontario

Neutral Citation: 2017 ONFSCDRS 331

FSCO A16-000665

BETWEEN:

NARGIS ZAIDI MANN

Applicant

and

TD HOME AND AUTO INSURANCE COMPANY

Insurer

DECISION ON A MOTION

Before: Anne Sone

Heard: December 12, 2017, at the offices of the Financial Services Commission of Ontario in Toronto.

Appearances: Nargis Zaidi Mann

Shahen Alexanian for Alexanian Law Firm

Asma Desai for TD Home and Auto Insurance Company

Overview:

The Applicant, Nargis Zaidi Mann, was injured in a motor vehicle accident on March 12, 2013. She applied for statutory accident benefits from TD Home and Auto Insurance Company (“TD Home”), payable under the Schedule.¹ The parties were unable to resolve their disputes through mediation, and Ms. Mann applied for arbitration at the Financial Services Commission of Ontario under the Insurance Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.I.8, as amended.

Issues:

The issues in this motion hearing are:

Should Mr. Alexanian be permitted to withdraw as a representative for Ms. Mann?
Should the Motion Record pertaining to this motion be sealed?
Should a different arbitrator be selected to hear Ms. Mann’s case of the merits?

Result:

Mr. Alexanian is permitted to withdraw as a representative for Ms. Mann.
The Motion Record pertaining to this motion is sealed.
A different arbitrator will be selected to hear Ms. Mann’s case on the merits.

Motion seeking permission to withdraw representation:

Mr. Alexanian prepared and served a Motion Record seeking permission to withdraw as Ms. Mann’s representative. He also attended at the Commission and made oral submissions indicating that there had been a complete breakdown in solicitor-client relations with the Applicant.

The Applicant attended this Motion hearing and agreed that for various reasons there had been a complete breakdown in solicitor-client relations. She also confirmed that she no longer wished to retain Mr. Alexanian as her representative.

Mr. Alexanian asked that the Motion Record be sealed due to the sensitive and possibly prejudicial nature of the documents provided. In addition, he requested that a different arbitrator be selected to hear Ms. Mann’s case of the merits.

TD Home took no position with regard to this motion.

Law regarding a Motion to Withdraw Representation:

The Dispute Resolution Practice Code sets out at Rule 9.7 and 9.8 what a representative who seeks to withdraw from a proceeding must do. The representative must provide the following:

(a) A written request for withdrawal, with reasons, to the Dispute Resolution Group and all parties to the proceeding;

(b) The last known address, telephone number and electronic transmission address (if any) of the represented party.

If the represented party does not provide written consent to the representative’s request for withdrawal, an adjudicator may permit the representative to withdraw, subject to such terms as the adjudicator considers just.

Conclusion:

Mr. Alexanian has provided a written request for withdrawal, with reasons, of his representation of Ms. Mann through his Motion Record.

Ms. Mann confirmed her address, telephone number and e-mail address.

Based on the Motion Record, and the oral submissions of both Mr. Alexanian and Ms. Mann, I am satisfied that there has been a complete breakdown in the solicitor-client relationship. In fact, Ms. Mann consents to the withdrawal of Mr. Alexanian as her representative.

Under these circumstances, I find that Mr. Alexanian has complied with the provisions of the Code, and that it is appropriate to permit him to withdraw as Ms. Mann’s representative in this proceeding.

Having read the Motion Record, I find that it should be sealed due to the sensitive and possibly prejudicial nature of the documents provided. For this reason, I also find that a different arbitrator be selected to hear Ms. Mann’s case on the merits.

December 15, 2017

Anne Sone

Arbitrator

Date