–18-005114 v Allstate Insurance Company, 2018 CanLII 143515 (ON LAT)
–A.F. v. North Blenheim Mutual Insurance Company, 2017 CanLII 87546 (ON LAT) (“Blenheim”)
–Manuel v. Registrar, Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, 2002, 2012 ONSC 1492 (Ont. S.C.)
-The Tribunal held a case conference on October 16, 2018. At the case conference, Adjudicator Ferguson ordered that the following preliminary issue be determined at the outset:
–>Is the applicant barred from appealing the respondent’s denial of her
claim for attendant care benefits (ACBs) under s.56 of the SABS because her
appeal was filed more than two years after the insurer refused to pay the
benefit claimed?
-<Result>
-The applicant filed her application for attendant care benefits after the time period
prescribed in s. 56 of the SABS. However, pursuant to s. 7 of the Licence Appeal Tribunal Act, 1999, S.O. 1999, c.12, Sched. G. (“LAT Act”), the applicant’s time to apply to the Tribunal for
attendant care benefits is extended to the date she filed her application with the
Tribunal. She can therefore proceed with her application.
-The Tribunal has listed four factors that are generally weighed in order to determine whether the justice of the case requires an extension of time.
i. a bona fide intention to appeal within the time period;
ii. the length of the delay;
iii. the prejudice to the other party; and
iv. the merits of the appeal.
-In particular, the respondent should have corrected any misunderstanding that
the applicant had that her Post-104 Attendant Care Benefits were on hold in
good faith because she was being assessed on whether she was catastrophically
impaired. The respondent should have clearly indicated that there was no
Alternate Arrangement in place, and that the applicant should have expected the
respondent to enforce the two-year limitation period from the date of the January
12, 2016 denial for Post-104 Attendant Care Benefits.
-Because the respondent did not make these efforts, the applicant was delayed in
applying to the Tribunal. Therefore, the Tribunal found that there are reasonable grounds to
grant the applicant an extension of time under Section 7 of the LAT Act.
