Financial Services Commission of Ontario

Commission des services financiers de l’Ontario

Neutral Citation: 2017 ONFSCDRS 97

Appeal P16-00030

OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF ARBITRATIONS

BHUPINDER SINGH GREWAL Appellant

and

AIG COMMERCIAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF CANADA Respondent

BEFORE: Delegate Jeffrey Rogers

REPRESENTATIVES: Mr. Frank Burns, solicitor for Mr. Grewal Mr. J. Claude Blouin, solicitor for AIG

HEARING DATE: On the record, by written submissions completed on March 30, 2017

APPEAL EXPENSES ORDER

Under section 283 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 Regulation 664, R.R.O. 1990, as amended, it is ordered that:

Mr. Grewal shall pay AIG Commercial Insurance Company of Canada its legal appeal expenses in the amount of $2,800 inclusive of disbursements and HST.

April 3, 2017

Jeffrey Rogers Director’s Delegate

Date

REASONS FOR DECISION

I. NATURE OF THE APPEAL

In a decision dated November 29, 2016, I dismissed Mr. Grewal’s Application for Variation or Revocation of Arbitrator Feldman’s decision regarding his entitlement to income replacement benefits, attendant care benefits and housekeeping benefits, as well the Arbitrator’s expense decision and the expense decision Director’s Delegate Blackman made following dismissal of Mr. Grewal’s appeal of the Arbitrator’s decision.

AIG now seeks its legal expenses.

II. BACKGROUND and ANALYSIS

AIG was successful on the Application. It seeks legal expenses in the amount of $3,642.15, based upon 26.7 hours, at the applicable Legal Aid Tariff for lawyers with more than 10 years of experience.

Mr. Grewal’s submissions regarding the merits of his application, the pending judicial review of my decision and his inviting AIG to mediate are irrelevant. My earlier decision addressed the merits. My letter of January 5, 2017, in which I rejected Mr. Grewal’s submission that the expense hearing should be adjourned pending judicial review, addressed that issue. And AIG had no duty to accept an invitation to mediate.

Mr. Grewal’s relevant submissions are that the time claimed is excessive and that the parties should bear their own expenses because of the novelty of the issues.

I do not agree that Mr. Grewal raised novel issues. His argument that his credibility should be revisited based upon a subsequent decision by a different Arbitrator was somewhat novel, but that does not make the issue novel. The requirements for establishing entitlement to variation or revocation of an order are well established.

I agree that the amount claimed is high, given that the average expense award to successful insurers was $ $2,812.90, when Delegate Blackman conducted a review in Bains and RBC General Insurance Company.¹ Adjusting that average for increases in the Legal Aid Tariff and taking into account the fact that some work for AIG on this Application, likely duplicated work done on the appeal of the Arbitrator’s order, I find that AIG is entitled to legal expenses in the amount of $2,800.