Financial Services Commission of Ontario

Commission des services financiers de l’Ontario

Neutral Citation: 2018 ONFSCDRS 147

Appeal P17-00011

OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF ARBITRATIONS

STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY

Appellant

and

KUMUTHAKUMARY KULAVEERASINGAM

Respondent

BEFORE:

Edward Lee

REPRESENTATIVES:

Cary Schneider for State Farm

David S. Wilson for Mrs. Kulaveerasingam

HEARING DATE:

By written submissions

VARIATION 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:

1. State Farm shall pay Mr. Kulaveerasingam his legal expenses in the amount of $2,500.00, inclusive of disbursements and HST.

Edward Lee

Director’s Delegate

October 16, 2018

REASONS FOR DECISION

I. BACKGROUND

In a decision dated May 30, 2018, I varied an order issued by Arbitrator Pressman on February 6, 2015. That order had required State Farm to pay Mr. Kulaveerasingam ongoing IRBs of $400.00 per week. The parties had agreed that State Farm was entitled to a variation of that order because Mr. Kulaveerasingam had subsequently become entitled to receive CPP benefits.

Nevertheless, the parties did not agree as to the exact wording of the order sought, the date it would take effect, and whether State Farm was entitled to repayments of past IRBs based on three notices it had issued to Mr. Kulaveerasingam.

Ultimately, I granted the variation request and determined the contested issues in favour of Mr. Kulaveerasingam.

II. ANALYSIS

I find Mr. Kulaveerasingam is entitled to his reasonable expenses for the variation proceeding. He was entirely successful in regard to the contested issues. There are no other relevant factors to consider.¹

State Farm did not provide any submissions in regard to costs. In assessing expenses, it is trite to say that a line-by-line assessment of the Bill of Costs is not appropriate in these matters. Rather, a global assessment of reasonable expenses should be made. In assessing the reasonableness of appeal expenses, I am guided by the decisions of Delegate Rogers in Echelon and Gilliland² and Delegate Blackman in Bains and RBC General Insurance Company.³

Mr. Kulaveerasingam has sought a total of $2,529.51 for fees, disbursements, and HST. I have deducted the disbursements sought for parking and mileage.

I find it appropriate to award Mr. Kulaveerasingam the total sum of $2,500.00 for legal fees for the variation proceeding, inclusive of disbursements and HST.

Edward Lee

Director’s Delegate

October 16, 2018

Footnotes

1. 1Section 282(11) of the Insurance Act, and subsection 12(2) of R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 664 (the “Expense Regulation”)
2. 2(FSCO P16-00064, July 6, 2017)
3. 3(FSCO P09-00005, September 8, 2010)