Financial Services Commission of Ontario
Commission des services financiers de l’Ontario
Neutral Citation: 2018 ONFSCDRS 48
Appeal P17-00056
OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF ARBITRATIONS
YONG WANG
Appellant
and
UNIFUND ASSURANCE COMPANY
Respondent
BEFORE:
Delegate Jeffrey Rogers
REPRESENTATIVES:
Mr. Yong Wang, self-represented
Ms. Jocelyn Tatebe, solicitor for Unifund
HEARING DATE:
Heard by written submissions, completed on January 29, 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:
This appeal is dismissed.
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.
March 5, 2018
Jeffrey Rogers Director’s Delegate
Date
REASONS FOR DECISION
I. BACKGROUND
Mr. Wang appealed the Arbitrator’s decision of June 19, 2017. The Arbitrator denied his claim for attendant care benefits and for housekeeping and home maintenance benefits. The Arbitrator also awarded Unifund its expenses of the arbitration. At the arbitration hearing, Mr. Wang was the only witness. The Arbitrator did not allow him to file any documents since he had not served any on Unifund. The Arbitrator found that he provided no evidence to support his claims.
I acknowledged the appeal on August 17, 2017. Mr. Wang indicated in his Notice of Appeal that he intended to order the transcript of the arbitration hearing. My acknowledgement letter notified him that the time for his written submissions, normally 30 days after receipt of the Response to Appeal, was extended to 30 days from receipt of the transcript. Unifund delivered its Response on September 8, 2017. To this date, Mr. Wang has neither ordered the transcript nor delivered his written submissions.
I wrote to Mr. Wang on October 19, 2017 telling him that he should have received the transcript by then and inquiring about the status of his written submissions. I got no answer. I wrote to him again on January 9, 2018. I informed him that I now assumed that he would not be ordering the transcript and I fixed January 29, 2018 as the date for delivery of his written submissions. He responded by letter of January 10, 2018. He informed me that he was too busy to meet the January 29th deadline and besides, he still thought that the transcript was necessary for the appeal. He gave no indication of when he might order the transcript or when he might be able to deliver his submissions. By letter of January 11, 2018, I informed him that the deadline remained unchanged. By letter of the same date, he responded that he disagreed with my decision.
II. ANALYSIS
Rule 58.1 allows me to proceed with an appeal even though a party fails to file any documents required by the Rules. I have applied that Rule here.
Mr. Wang represented himself at the arbitration, as he does in this appeal. The Arbitrator noted the lack of evidence to support his claims and consequently dismissed them. The Notice of Appeal does not challenge these findings. Instead, it makes vague allegations of bad faith and abuse of power by the Arbitrator, and of collusion between the Arbitrator and Unifund. The merits of the appeal are not apparent.
Because Mr. Wang represents himself, I allowed this appeal to proceed despite the fact that it does not appear to raise a question of law and despite being filed 60 days after the date of the order, in breach of the 30-day time limit set out in Rule 52.1. However, I now see no prospect of its timely resolution through the full appeal process. I find that it would be unfair to require Unifund to participate further in the process.
Under s. 283(1) of the Insurance Act, appeals are limited to “a question of law”. Rule 51.2(b) allows me to reject an appeal if it does not raise a question of law. I am not satisfied that Mr. Wang’s Notice of Appeal identifies any errors of law by the Arbitrator. This appeal is therefore dismissed.
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.
March 5, 2018
Jeffrey Rogers Director’s Delegate
Date