1 total
Limitation period not triggered where insurer's denial letter ambiguously suggested further benefits might be owed.
The applicant sought income replacement benefits following a motor vehicle accident.
The insurer argued the application was barred by the two-year limitation period under section 56 of the Schedule, relying on a January 2020 letter that ceased benefits but requested further paystubs to calculate possible benefits owed.
The Tribunal found the denial letter was ambiguous and failed to meet the clear and unequivocal standard required by Smith v. Co-operators.
As the limitation period was not validly triggered, the applicant was permitted to proceed to a hearing.
