Financial Services Commission of Ontario
Commission des services financiers de l’Ontario
Neutral Citation: 2018 ONFSCDRS 134
Appeal P17-00033
OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF ARBITRATIONS
MASOUD GULBAN
Appellant
and
COACHMAN INSURANCE COMPANY
Respondent
BEFORE:
Edward Lee
REPRESENTATIVES:
Masoud Gulban was self-represented
Harry Brown for Coachman Insurance Company
HEARING DATE:
June 25, 2018
APPEAL 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:
- The appeal is dismissed, and the Arbitrator’s order of February 13, 2017 is confirmed.
Edward Lee Director’s Delegate
August 10, 2018
REASONS FOR DECISION
I. NATURE OF THE APPEAL
This matter involves the SABS–2010.1
Mr. Gulban (“the Appellant”) appeals the decision of Arbitrator Parish (“the Arbitrator”), dated February 13, 2017. In her decision, the Arbitrator dismissed the Appellant’s application for arbitration and awarded costs of $5,000.00 to Coachman Insurance Company (“Coachman”).
II. BACKGROUND
Mr. Gulban was injured in a motor vehicle accident on March 8, 2014, and sought accident benefits from Coachman. Disputes arose between the parties, and Mr. Gulban, through his representative, applied for arbitration at the Financial Services Commission of Ontario under the Insurance Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. I.8, as amended.
Mr. Gulban attended at a pre-hearing conference on November 4, 2015, accompanied by his representative. On that date, an arbitration hearing was scheduled for Mr. Gulban for November 28-30, 2016.
On November 18, 2016, Mr. Gulban’s representative filed a motion requesting to be removed as representative for Mr. Gulban.
The motion was heard on November 28, 2016, the date of Mr. Gulban’s arbitration hearing. Mr. Gulban did not attend on that date. The Arbitrator allowed Mr. Gulban’s representative to withdraw from the proceeding.
After allowing the motion, she heard a request from Coachman that the application for arbitration be dismissed and costs of $5,000.00 be awarded to Coachman.
The Arbitrator then sent a letter (dated November 28, 2016) by registered and regular mail to Mr. Gulban informing him that he was no longer represented by counsel, and that Mr. Gulban would have to contact ADR Chambers by December 30, 2016, if he wished to pursue his application for arbitration. She also informed him that if she did not hear from him by that date, his application for arbitration might be dismissed and costs awarded against him.
As of December 30, 2016, the Arbitrator had not received any correspondence from Mr. Gulban, and her decision dismissing his application was issued on February 13, 2017.
III. ANALYSIS
Mr. Gulban’s written submissions for this appeal are sparse, and provide little or no argument about errors of law in the Arbitrator’s decision.
The only reason set out to support his appeal is that he did not attend his arbitration hearing because of a lack of communication between himself and his representative. In this regard, Mr. Gulban had not sought leave to present new evidence at this appeal hearing, and appeals are limited to errors of law.
Even so, the decision of the Arbitrator confirmed that Mr. Gulban was present at the initial pre-hearing conference when the arbitration hearing was scheduled. The Arbitrator determined that he had notice of the arbitration hearing date.
Further, the Arbitrator then sent Mr. Gulban letters by both regular and registered mail (dated November 28, 2016) informing him that his counsel had withdrawn from the record, and that she might proceed with his application in his absence if Mr. Gulban did not communicate with her by December 30, 2016. Mr. Gulban did not do so, and the Arbitrator issued her decision dismissing his claim in February 2017.
At the hearing before me, Mr. Gulban confirmed receiving the Arbitrator’s decision and his mailing address.
Again, I find no error of law in the Arbitrator’s decision. She could apply Rule 37.7 of the Dispute Resolution Practice Code and proceed in his absence if she were satisfied that notice of the proceeding had been sent to the party. Accordingly, I am dismissing Mr. Gulban’s appeal.
IV. EXPENSES
If the parties are unable to agree about expenses of this appeal, an expense hearing may be arranged in accordance with Rule 79 of the Dispute Resolution Practice Code.
Edward Lee Director’s Delegate
August 10, 2018
Footnotes
- The Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule — Effective September 1, 2010, Ontario Regulation 34/10, as amended.