David B. Hayward

The appellant was injured in a motor vehicle collision and submitted a claim for prescription medication to her auto insurer.

The insurer required her to undergo a medical examination under section 44 of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule to determine if the expense was reasonable and necessary.

When the appellant refused, the Licence Appeal Tribunal barred her from disputing the denial of her claim.

On appeal, the Divisional Court held that the Tribunal erred in its statutory interpretation, finding that insurers cannot require section 44 examinations for prescription medication claims because such claims are not submitted through treatment and assessment plans.

The defendants brought a motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' action for delay.

The action arose from a motor vehicle accident that occurred nearly 18 years prior.

The court found that while the delay was inordinate, it was not inexcusable, as the defendants had consented to or requested many of the adjournments, and the plaintiff had been actively participating in the litigation process.

The motion to dismiss was denied, and the court set a timetable to bring the matter to trial.

The appellant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and received disability benefits until January 1997.

In January 2000, the respondent insurer sent a letter refusing further weekly benefits, outlining the dispute resolution process, and enclosing relevant sections of the Insurance Act.

In 2007, the appellant sought to amend his statement of claim to include a claim for income replacement benefits.

The motion was dismissed on the basis that the two-year limitation period had expired.

On appeal, the court held that the insurer's letter constituted a valid refusal that triggered the limitation period, as it adequately informed the appellant of the dispute resolution process.