Case Brief – Awuau v. Intact Insurance Company

Case Brief – Awuau v. Intact Insurance Company

The applicant, Mr. Isaak Awuau was involved in a motor vehicle accident on July 19, 2009. He sustained injuries and submitted a claim to his insurers, Intact Insurance Company (Intact).

A dispute arose between the applicant and Intact concerning his entitlement benefits and Mr. Awuau applied for arbitration at the Financial Services Commission of Ontario (the Commission).

Neither Mr. Awuau nor his representative showed up at the prehearing discussion on March 4, 2014. Arbitration was scheduled for May 9, 2014 at 10 a.m. with the understanding that if the applicant showed up, the matter would be treated as pre-hearing. Again, Mr. Awuau and or his representative failed to show up on this date. A letter dated March 6, 2014 was mailed to him at his last known address advising that under certain rules of the Dispute Resolution Practice Code (the Code) a hearing may be dismissed if the proceeding is deemed to be frivolous, vexatious or commenced in bad faith.

Counsel for Intact moved that the applicant’s Application for Arbitration be dismissed.

The Decision
The Arbitrator dismissed the Application accordingly. Intact was awarded cost in the amount of $850 payable forthwith.

The Law
Rule 68 of the Code provides grounds on which the Adjudicator acted correctly in dismissing the Applicant’s case. Section 68.1 provides that the hearing may be dismissed if the proceeding is deemed to be frivolous, vexatious or commenced in bad faith. Mr. Awuau’s failure to turn up at the hearings may be construed as an application that was brought frivolously before the Commission or commenced as a result of vexation or in bad faith. His failure to proceed with the matter did not put him in good standing.

Section 68.2 requires the adjudicator “to deliver written notice to all parties of the intention to dismiss the proceeding on the grounds set out in Rule 68.1.” Mr. Awuau was served the requisite notices including a motion record on by Intact by regular mail on April 16, 2014 advising of its intention have the matter dismissed.

Mr. Awuau failed his obligations under subsection 3 (a) and (b) to “provide the grounds upon which the party objects to the dismissal of the proceeding, or set out any other issues or concerns, in writing; and serve the material upon the other parties and file it within 20 days of the date of the notice provided under Rule 68.2.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *