The applicant insurer sought judicial review of a director's delegate's decision upholding an arbitrator's finding that the insurer's refusal to designate the respondent as catastrophically impaired did not trigger the two-year limitation period under s. 281.1(1) of the Insurance Act.
The Divisional Court held that the standard of review was reasonableness, rejecting the insurer's argument for correctness.
The Court found the director's delegate reasonably concluded that a catastrophic impairment determination is not a benefit itself, and the insurer's denial letter did not constitute a clear and unequivocal refusal of a benefit.
The application for judicial review was dismissed.
