Case summary: Harriot and Belair

Case summary: Harriot and Belair

Case summary: Harriot and Belair

Paul Michael Harriot v. Belair Insurance Company INC, FSCO A12-001758

 

FACTS OF THE CASE

The Respondent Belair Insurance Company Inc. (“Belair”) paid statutory accident benefits  to  the Applicant Paul Michael Harriot, who was  injured as a result of a motor vehicle accident on June 5, 2010. The Applicant asked the Respondent to pay further  benefits and his claim was  denied . Because the arisen dispute was not resolved through mediation, Mr. Harriot applied for arbitration at the Financial Services Commission of Ontario under the Insurance Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.I.8.

ISSUES

1.     Should this arbitration be dismissed because Mr. Harriot  failed to participate?

2.     Is Mr. Harriot liable to pay Belair’s expenses of the arbitration, and if so, in what amount?

LAW

1)       Insurance Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.I.8.

2)      The Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule, Ontario Regulation 34/10.

ANALYSIS

July 10, 2012 at the pre-hearing discussion, the parties identified the disputed issues. In March 2013, Belair obtained evidence that Mr. Harriot was not injured in an “accident” as defined by  the Schedule. The hearing was adjourned to May 20, 2014. Furher the representative of  Mr. Harriot was removed from the record by the order because of a subsequent breakdown of their relationship. The Applicant was notified about the pre-hearing discussion on April 10, 2014 to determine whether Mr. Harriot was going to continue this arbitration. The notice of the resumption was delivered at his last known address in the records of the Commission. However, he did not attend the pre-hearing.

CONCLUSSION

Due to the success of the case, Belair was awarded the cost of the arbitration to the amount $1,500 and the cost of investigating the alleged “accident”.

This arbitration was dismissed because Mr. Harriot  had to provide evidence for his claimed benefits and the onus of proving entitlement was his obligation.

SIGNIFICANCE

The Respondent failed to perform the onus of proving his claim.

Due to the notice of the pre-hearing, the decision was made in his absence.

Decided by Arbitrator Jeffry Rogers on July 8, 2014.

Valery Turyshev is a Paralegal student at Centennial College in Toronto studying professional communications with Omar Ha-Redeye.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.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