and DECISION ON EXPENSES



Similar documents
DECISION ON A MOTION TO DISMISS

DECISION ON A PRELIMINARY ISSUE

DECISION ON A PRELIMINARY ISSUE

DECISION WITH RESPECT TO PRELIMINARY ISSUE

ORDER WITH RESPECT TO DISTRIBUTION OF SETTLEMENT FUNDS AND RELATED MATTERS

ADRC Modified Dispute Resolution Practice Code ( ADRC Code )

DECISION ON A PRELIMINARY ISSUE

ACCIDENT BENEFIT CONTINGENCY FEE RETAINER AGREEMENT

ACCIDENT BENEFITS: RECENT CHANGES AND DEVELOPMENTS

DECISION ON PRELIMINARY ISSUES

Desjardins. Maria Cece Senior Manager Automobile Insurance Policy Unit

LEGAL SERVICES CONTRACT. THIS LEGAL SERVICES CONTRACT (this "Contract"), entered into as of

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS TRIBUNAL DECISION NO. 106

The unidentified vehicle is a vehicle whose driver or owner cannot be determined.

Licence Appeal Tribunal

(3) provide certainty around cost and payment for insurers and regulated health professionals;

How To Get A Payout From A Claim For A Medical Check In A Car Accident

PLEASE NOTE. For more information concerning the history of these regulations, please see the Table of Regulations.

Younis v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company; Insurance Bureau of Canada et al., Intervenors

DECISION WITH RESPECT TO PRELIMINARY ISSUE

AT ARUSHA. Taxation Cause No.2 of (Originating from Appeal No. 1 of 2012) (Appellate Division) PLAXEDA RUGUMBA..

COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO

ISSUES PAPER LEGAL REPRESENTATION AND JURISDICTIONAL LIMIT IN SMALL CLAIMS

Split Dollar Life Insurance Agreement

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS TRIBUNAL DECISION NO. 1015/94

Ontario Bar Association Conference Pleading Your Causes of Action to Win June 13, 2005

ARIAS U.S. STREAMLINED RULES FOR SMALL CLAIM DISPUTES

Rules of Procedure for Reviews and Appeals of Orders Issued by The Electrical Safety Authority

Practices and Procedures for Appeals under Section 11.1 of the School Act

Milwaukee Bar Association Fee Arbitration

CONTINGENCY FEE RETAINER AGREEMENT. This contingency fee retainer agreement is. Tel: Fax: Toll Free:

THE SOLICITORS (SCOTLAND) ACT 1980 THE SCOTTISH SOLICITORS DISCIPLINE TRIBUNAL. against

COLLABORATION AGREEMENT

RETAINER AGREEMENT. Dibble & Miller, P.C.

February 20, You inquire concerning section 4 of 1977 House Bill 2490, an amendment. Dear Commissioner Bell:

Tariff and billing handbook. 6. Costs and contributions

Transport Accident Act Common Law Protocols 1 April 2005 (amended as from March 2010)

The practice and procedure governing hearings pursuant to this Part shall be made by a Policy.

Award FINRA Dispute Resolution

Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) Rules of Practice and Procedure, Version 1 (April 1, 2016)

AMENDMENTS TO THE AUTO INSURANCE REGULATIONS: ACCIDENT BENEFITS AND BILL 198

NOTICE OF HEARING FOR APPROVAL OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION

IN THE COURT OF QUEEN S BENCH OF ALBERTA JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF EDMONTON TANYA LABONTE, JESSE STECHYNSKY AND RHONDA MCPHEE. - and

CIVIL DISBURSEMENTS FUND GUIDELINES

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS COUNTY DEPARTMENT CHANCERY DIVISION

ARBITRATION RULES OF THE COURT OF ARBITRATION AT THE POLISH CHAMBER OF COMMERCE

Guarantors YOUR LOANS. Guarantors. A consumer education programme by:

Accident Benefits & Spinal Cord Injuries under Bill 198

NOTE - This document is provided for guidance only and does not purport to be a legal interpretation. PERSONAL INSOLVENCY ACT 2012

Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy Rules

Insurance Act 1902 No 49

Accident Benefit. Significant Legal Decisions. In this issue of the Accident Benefit Reporter, we are pleased to provide a review and summary of

IN THE MATTER OF THE SECURITIES ACT R.S.O. 1990, c. S.5, AS AMENDED -AND- IN THE MATTER OF SYSTEMATECH SOLUTIONS INC., APRIL VUONG AND HAO QUACH

Claims Assessment Guidelines

IN THE MATTER OF the Insurance Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.i.8, as amended, and Ontario Regulation 668.

CITATION: Economical Mutual Insurance Company v. Northbridge Commercial Insurance Company, 2016 ONSC 458 COURT FILE NO.: CV DATE:

ILARS POLICY Funding of applications by injured workers to pursue claims for compensation

Chapter I. 1. Purpose. 2. Your Representations. 3. Cancellations. 4. Mandatory Administrative Proceeding. dotversicherung-registry GmbH

Litigation Management Guidelines for Defence Counsel

The Judges of the Fulton Superior Court hereby create a "Business Case Division" (hereinafter referred to as the "Division").

TRONOX TORT CLAIMS TRUST. Individual Review and Arbitration Procedures for Category A and Category D Personal Injury Claims

AN ACT IN THE COUNCIL OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

(The issue of this form is not an admission of liability)

SCOTIA DEALER ADVANTAGE RETAIL FINANCING PROGRAM DEALER AGREEMENT

MEMORANDUM ON OFFERS TO SETTLE. 1. What is an Offer to Settle? 2. Why Make an Offer to Settle? 3. How Can it Help to Make an Offer to Settle?

Motor vehicle insurance claim form

RESERVED NAMES CHALLENGE POLICY

Automobile Injury Compensation Appeal Commission

Claims Assessment and Resolution Service Assessor Guidance Material

211 CMR : DIRECT PAYMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLE COLLISION AND COMPREHENSIVE COVERAGE CLAIMS AND REFERRAL REPAIR SHOP PROGRAMS

Remuneration of Insolvency Officeholders Republic of Ireland

REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA

AN ACT. To amend chapter 383, RSMo, by adding thereto thirteen new sections relating to the Missouri health care arbitration act.

RETAIL SALES FINANCING AGREEMENT. Dealer Name: Dealer Address: RECITALS

SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: Webber v. Boutilier, 2016 NSSC 5

NEBRASKA PROPERTY AND LIABILITY INSURANCE GUARANTY ASSOCIATION ACT

How To Process A Small Claims Case In Anarizonia

AND IN THE MATTER OF THE ARBITRATION ACT, S.O. 1991, c. 17, as amended; CT DIRECT INSURANCE COMPANY. - and - LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY DECISION

Give details of your vehicle involved in the accident - Year Make (e.g. Holden) Model (e.g. Commodore) Registration No.

RULES OF PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE. August 20, 2015

AUDIT ACT Revised Edition CAP

Transcription:

FSCO A04 000422 BETWEEN: PHILIP SOOBRIAN Applicant and BELAIR INSURANCE COMPANY INC. Insurer DECISION ON EXPENSES Before: Heard: Appearances: January 27, 2006, at the Offices of the Financial Services Commission of Ontario in Toronto. Mr. Soobrian did not appear, nor did anyone appear on his behalf Ryan M. Naimark for Belair Insurance Company Inc. ISSUES: The Applicant, Philip Soobrian, was injured in a motor vehicle accident on September 4, 1999. My September 20, 2005 decision dealt with Mr. Soobrian s claim for statutory accident benefits under the Schedule, 1 as well as the claim of Belair Insurance Company Inc. ( Belair ) for repayment of certain benefits. I made the following orders, while reserving on the issue of expenses: 1. Belair is not obligated to continue to pay Mr. Soobrian weekly income replacement benefits pursuant to subsection 37(5) of the Schedule. 2. Belair is entitled to repayment of weekly income replacement benefits of $300.76 from December 9, 2002, together with interest thereon from July 6, 2004 at the bank rate in effect on that day, in accordance with subsection 47(6) of the Schedule. 3. Mr. Soobrian is not entitled to payment of $2,500 for the cost of an examination conducted by Dr. A. Hanick, claimed pursuant to section 24 of the Schedule. 1 The Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule C Accidents on or after November 1, 1996, Ontario Regulation 403/96, as amended.

4. All payments of weekly income replacement benefits by Belair to a trust account held by Messrs. Thomson Rogers in accordance with my order confirmed by letter dated April 15, 2005 shall be repaid to Belair, together with any accrued interest thereon, and shall be applied against the repayment order herein. My September 20, 2005 decision requested further submissions from the parties as to the applicable rate of interest and the exact amount of the repayment. The parties were given twenty days from the date of the decision to serve and file written submissions. Belair filed certain further materials. Mr. Soobrian did not respond, nor did Mr. Soobrian attend the expense hearing, although given proper notice by the Commission. At this further hearing, Belair advised that because of the cost of retaining an expert to calculate the interest on the stream of income replacement benefits ( IRBs ) ordered repaid, they were not seeking a more precise order regarding interest. The only outstanding issue, therefore, is: 1. Is either party entitled to an order of expenses in respect of this arbitration proceeding, and if so, what is the appropriate quantum of those expenses? RESULT: 1. Belair Insurance Company Inc. is entitled to its expenses of this arbitration proceeding, fixed in the amount of $9,864.77, including G.S.T. EVIDENCE AND ANALYSIS: Entitlement to Expenses Rule 75.2 of the Dispute Resolution Practice Code (Fourth Edition, Updated - October 2003) (the Code ) sets out the criteria to be considered in awarding expenses. In accordance with these criteria, I find that Belair is entitled to its expenses of this proceeding for the following reasons: 1. Mr. Soobrian was unsuccessful in all of his claims. Belair was significantly successful in its claim for repayment; 2. Mr. Soobrian failed to pursue his claim. He failed to attend the four-day hearing notwithstanding the Notices sent by the Commission and his former counsel s repeated efforts to reach him. Such failure to attend followed Mr. Soobrian being presented with significant evidence of fraud he had committed against Belair. I find that Mr. Soobrian s claims were improper and unnecessary.

3. Mr. Soobrian s main claim was for IRBs. Far from establishing any continuing claim, I was persuaded, as stated in my September 20, 2005 decision, that Philip Soobrian, both by omission and by positive assertion, has obtained payment of IRBs by Belair as a result of repeated, prolonged and material wilful (that is, wilful and intentional) misrepresentation or fraud. Mr. Soobrian s failure to attend the hearing led to a motion by his counsel to get off the record and ultimately required an adjournment of the hearing. Mr. Soobrian s continued endeavour to perpetuate fraud forced Belair to address every substantive and procedural issue which prolonged, obstructed and hindered the proceeding. The Quantum of Expenses Belair served on Mr. Soobrian, in accordance with the Code, and filed with the Commission, a Bill of Costs enumerating a total of 204.5 hours of legal work in respect of this proceeding at $150 an hour, together with $1,528.80 in disbursements, for a total bill of $34,458.07. Regarding the hourly rate of counsel, Belair conceded that I was bound by Rule 78.1 of the Code, which allows insurers counsel the applicable hourly rate allowed under the Legal Aid Services Act, 1998, adjusted to include the appropriate experience allowance. Coming within Tier 2, the experience allowance of Belair s counsel allows for a 12.5% increase over the base rate, resulting in an hourly rate of $83.10. The Code provides that this system seeks the least expensive resolution of disputes. I do not think it was the intention of the drafters of this system that cost efficiency favour those who prolong, obstruct or hinder the proceeding at the expense of those who abide by the rules, but that has been the unfortunate result in this case. Regarding the number of allowable hours, Belair agreed with the general approach that a line-by- line assessment of the Bill of Costs should not be taken; rather, one should look at a ratio of pre- hearing preparation time to hearing time between 1:1 and 4:1. Belair agreed that there had been 18.75 hours of hearing time in this case. I am satisfied that the maximum ratio of 4:1 is appropriate in this case, for the following reasons: 1. Belair s evidence in this case was presented in an extremely efficient manner. I find that this was the result of thorough preparation. A party should not be penalized where the preparation time was well spent in facilitating an efficient and shortened hearing; 2. Considerable time was wasted in this proceeding by Mr. Soobrian s failure to pursue his claim and attend at the hearing. Specifically, Mr. Soobrian s failure

to attend the hearing necessitated an adjournment, which resulted in Belair duplicating part of its preparation. Accordingly, in addition to the 18.75 hours for the hearing, I allow 75 hours for prehearing preparation, for a total of 93.75 hours. At $83.10 per hour, I allow $7,790.63 for counsel s time. G.S.T. is allowed in the further amount of $545.34. I find the following disbursements are properly claimed under Section F of the Code, Schedule of Dispute Resolution Expenses (which is taken from the Schedule to R.R.O. 1990, Regulation 664, Amended to O. Reg. 275/03): telephone expenses $ 132.96 subsection 4(1) facsimiles $ 32.75 subsection 4(1) photocopying costs $ 507.50 subsection 4(2); In view of the volume of material served on Mr. Soobrian and filed with the Commission, I find this amount reasonable. courier fees $ 112.40 subsection 4(3) clinical notes and records $ 250.00 subsection 4(4) process serving fees $ 290.29 subsection 4(4) summons to witness fees $ 68.90 section 5 travel expenses $ 134.00 section 6 total $ 1,528.80 Accordingly, Belair s expenses are allowed as follows: Counsel Fees $ 7,790.63 G.S.T. on Counsel Fees $ 545.34 Disbursements $ 1,528.80 $ 9,864.77 Arbitrator February 7, 2006 Date

FSCO A04 000422 BETWEEN: PHILIP SOOBRIAN Applicant and BELAIR INSURANCE COMPANY INC. Insurer ARBITRATION ORDER Under section 282 of the Insurance Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.i.8, as amended, it is ordered that: 1. Mr. Soobrian shall pay Belair Insurance Company Inc. its expenses of this arbitration proceeding, fixed in the amount of $9,864.77, including G.S.T. Arbitrator February 7, 2006 Date