Dr. John Geleff

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits, including income replacement, medical, attendant care, and housekeeping benefits.

The insurer terminated these benefits based on insurer's examinations concluding the applicant did not suffer a substantial inability to perform her tasks and that further treatment was not reasonable or necessary.

The arbitrator dismissed all of the applicant's claims, finding her evidence highly unreliable and lacking credibility due to numerous inconsistencies, failure to produce medical records, and failure to disclose pre-accident medical history.

The arbitrator also accepted evidence from a doctor called by the insurer who testified that his name and signature were used on treatment plans without his knowledge or authorization.

The defendant brought a summary judgment motion seeking dismissal of a personal injury action as statute‑barred under the two‑year limitation period in the Limitations Act, 2002.

The defendant argued the claim was discovered on the date of the motor vehicle accident.

The court considered the interaction between the discoverability rule and the threshold requirements under s. 267.5(5) of the Insurance Act, which require proof of permanent serious impairment or disfigurement before liability arises.

Relying on expert evidence indicating that permanence of the injuries could not reasonably be assessed shortly after the accident, the court held that discoverability of the claim depended on when the permanence of the injuries could be determined.

Given the limited evidentiary record and absence of defence expert evidence, the court found that the plaintiff had a reasonable chance of proving discoverability at trial.

The summary judgment motion was therefore dismissed.