Financial Services Commission of Ontario Commission des services financiers de l’Ontario
Neutral Citation: 2018 ONFSCDRS 8
Appeal P17-00031
OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF ARBITRATIONS
PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY OF CANADA Appellant
and
DHARAM SIDHU Respondent
BEFORE: Delegate Jeffrey Rogers
REPRESENTATIVES: Ms.Debbie Orth, solicitor for Progressive Mr. Kevin Doan, solicitor for Mr. Sidhu
HEARING DATE: Heard by written submissions, completed on December 11, 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:
- Progressive shall forthwith pay Mr. Sidhu appeal expenses in the amount of $3,500.
January 9, 2018
Jeffrey Rogers Director’s Delegate
Date
REASONS FOR DECISION
I. BACKGROUND
In a decision dated September 28, 2017, I dismissed Progressive’s appeal of the Arbitrator’s order. I found that the Arbitrator correctly determined that Mr. Sidhu’s claim for accident benefits is not barred by operation of the Doctrine of Laches. As a result, his claim can proceed to an arbitration hearing. Progressive has sought a Judicial Review of my decision.
Mr. Sidhu now seeks his appeal expenses. The parties agree that Mr. Sidhu is entitled to an award of appeal expenses in the amount of $3,500. They disagree on when expenses should be paid. Mr. Sidhu seeks payment forthwith. Progressive submits that payment should either be delayed pending the Judicial Review, or awarded in the cause, or in any event of the cause.
II. ANALYSIS
I find that the award of appeal expenses should be payable forthwith. I see no merit in Progressive’s submission that payment of appeal expenses should be delayed pending the result of the Judicial Review. Judicial Review does not automatically stay the process and Progressive has not identified any factor that supports departing from the general rule.
I also do not accept Progressive’s submission that appeal expenses should be awarded in the cause or in any event of the cause. Mr. Sidhu was entirely successful in the appeal. The issue on appeal was discrete from the issues remaining in the arbitration. It was an issue that Progressive raised and unsuccessfully pursued. In effect, Progressive’s submission links Mr. Sidhu’s entitlement to appeal expenses to his success in the remaining issues. I am not satisfied that there is a reasonable basis for doing so.
January 9, 2018
Jeffrey Rogers Director’s Delegate
Date