Financial Services Commission des
Commission services financiers
of Ontario de l’Ontario
Neutral Citation: 2017 ONFSCDRS 52
FSCO A15-007847
BETWEEN:
JEMEKAA BECKFORD
Applicant
and
MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT CLAIMS FUND
Insurer
REASONS FOR DECISION
Before: Arbitrator Benjamin Drory
Heard: By teleconference call on February 3, 2017
Appearances: Ms. Jemekaa Beckford did not participate Ms. Laura Wright participated for Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Fund
Issues:
The Applicant, Ms. Jemekaa Beckford, was injured in a motor vehicle accident on July 18, 2014 and sought accident benefits from Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Fund (“MVACF”), payable under the Schedule.1 The parties were unable to resolve their disputes through mediation, and Ms. Beckford, 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 Ms. Beckford’s Application for Arbitration be dismissed?
Is MVACF entitled to its expenses of the proceeding?
Result:
Ms. Beckford’s Application for Arbitration is dismissed.
MVACF is entitled to its expenses respecting this matter in the amount of $1,750.00.
EVIDENCE AND ANALYSIS:
Chronology
A Pre-Hearing discussion in this case was held by teleconference arranged by ADR Chambers on November 9, 2016, at 3:00 p.m., at which Ms. Beckford failed to participate. At that time, Ms. Beckford’s legal representative at the time, Ms. Dharshika Pathmanathan of Krylov Lam & Company, orally requested to be removed from the record as Ms. Beckford’s representative, on the basis of a breakdown in the solicitor-client relationship. I was unable to grant an Order on that point at that time, as Ms. Pathmanathan’s request did not comply with Rule 9.7 of the Dispute Resolution Practice Code (“DRPC”) (i.e., that such a request must be submitted in writing). However, I advised her that if she would submit the request in writing subsequently, in accordance with the form mandated, I would consider it.
That same day, I sent a letter to Ms. Beckford at her last known address to advise her of the missed Pre-Hearing discussion. The letter provided Ms. Beckford with an Attendance Notice, setting a date of February 3, 2017, starting at 10:00 a.m., by teleconference, 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 might dismiss her Application for Arbitration and consider MVACF’s request for expenses. The letter further made clear that this was to apply whether or not she was represented by counsel at that time.
Motion to be Removed from the Record
I subsequently received a written Motion, with supporting material, from Ms. Pathmanathan on November 22, 2016. I was satisfied that there had been a breakdown in the solicitor-client relationship. By letter, dated November 23, 2016, I ordered Krylov Lam & Company removed from the record as Ms. Beckford’s legal representative, and to consider Ms. Beckford unrepresented. I reiterated again in this letter that Ms. Beckford remained responsible to participate in the teleconference on February 3, 2017, else her Application for Arbitration may be dismissed and MVACF’s expenses of the Arbitration proceeding may be awarded against her.
The Dismissal
For the reasons that follow, Ms. Beckford’s Application for Arbitration is dismissed.
Ms. Beckford did not substantively participate in the teleconference on February 3, 2017. I called her last-known number in the Financial Services Commission of Ontario’s registration database on three occasions—at 10:00 a.m., 10:20 a.m., and 10:30 a.m. On the first occasion, there was no response; on the second occasion, Ms. Beckford answered but was abrasive and clearly annoyed by the call, and without discussing the matter asked me to call back in 10 minutes; despite this, on the third occasion, 10 minutes later, there was again no response.
I am satisfied that Ms. Beckford was given notice of all of the proceedings related to her Arbitration at her last known address. The notices were clear that the matter was to proceed at 10:00a.m. and Ms. Beckford was to actively participate in the call, whether she had legal counsel or not, else the matter could be dismissed and costs potentially awarded against her.
Pursuant to Rule 37.7 of the DRPC, the Arbitration Hearing proceeded in her absence.
Ms. Beckford 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:
MVACF requested $3,500.00 respecting its expenses in this matter. Ms. Beckford did not provide a response on point.
I find that MVACF is entitled to expenses in this matter. However, I find that $3,500.00 is high for a matter of this nature that was completed within 30 minutes. I acknowledge that a great deal of work seemed needed even to get to this point, though. Accordingly, I award MVACF half of what it has claimed—$1,750.00.
February 13, 2017
Benjamin Drory
Arbitrator
Date
Financial Services Commission des
Commission services financiers
of Ontario de l’Ontario
Neutral Citation: 2017 ONFSCDRS 52
FSCO A15-007847
BETWEEN:
JEMEKAA BECKFORD
Applicant
and
MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT CLAIMS FUND
Insurer
ARBITRATION ORDER
Under section 282 of the Insurance Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.I.8, as it read immediately before being amended by Schedule 3 to the Fighting Fraud and Reducing Automobile Insurance Rates Act, 2014, and Ontario Regulation 664, as amended, it is ordered that:
Ms. Beckford’s Application for Arbitration is dismissed.
MVACF is entitled to its expenses respecting this matter in the amount of $1,750.00.
February 13, 2017
Benjamin Drory
Arbitrator
Date
Footnotes
- The Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule - Effective September 1, 2010, Ontario Regulation 34/10, as amended.