Financial Services Commission of Ontario
Commission des services financiers de l’Ontario
Neutral Citation: 2018 ONFSCDRS 112
Appeal P17-00043
OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF ARBITRATIONS
STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY Appellant
and
JEYANATHAN THANGARAJAH Respondent
BEFORE: Edward Lee
REPRESENTATIVES: Michael Chadwick for State Farm David S. Wilson for Mr. Thangarajah
HEARING DATE: April 27, 2018
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:
- State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company shall pay Mr. Thangarajah its legal expenses of this proceeding in the amount of $700.00, inclusive of disbursements and HST.
Edward Lee Director’s Delegate
June 6, 2018
REASONS FOR DECISION
I. NATURE OF THE APPEAL
In a decision dated September 15, 2017, I ruled that State Farm’s appeal of an arbitrator’s order of June 12 2017, was an attempt to appeal a preliminary or interim order, or an order that was not a final order. I thus declined to hear the appeal.
Mr. Thangarajah now seeks expenses relating to this proceeding.
II. ANALYSIS
After the Notice of Appeal was filed by State Farm, I requested submissions from the parties in regard to whether I should allow the appeal to go forward, as it appeared, on its face, to be an appeal from a decision that was not final, or an interim or preliminary order.
I received written submissions from the parties, and ultimately decided that the appeal was from an interim order or a preliminary order or an order that was not final. An issue in dispute in the arbitration had not been finally decided. Accordingly, I declined to hear the appeal.
Mr. Thangarajah then provided me his Bill of Costs for this appeal proceeding. In it, he sought a total of $1,245.83 in legal fees, disbursements, and HST. State Farm argued that I should not consider expenses at this time, because the appeal might be heard on the merits at some time in the future. Alternatively, State Farm argued that $450.00 plus HST would be an appropriate sum for expenses of this proceeding.
Bearing these arguments in mind, I am not convinced that I should wait until some hypothetical time in the future when this appeal might be heard on its merits. Instead, I find it appropriate to determine the matter at this time.
I note that this proceeding was determined entirely on the record. The argument presented was fairly straightforward. I find it reasonable and appropriate to award the sum of $700.00 to Mr. Thangarajah as expenses of this proceeding for all legal fees, disbursements and HST.
Edward Lee Director’s Delegate
June 6, 2018