3 total
Applications for income replacement benefits dismissed as statute-barred due to expiry of two-year limitation period.
The applicant sought Income Replacement Benefits (IRBs) following two separate motor vehicle accidents.
The insurer denied the benefits and the applicant applied to the Licence Appeal Tribunal for dispute resolution.
The insurer brought a preliminary issue hearing arguing the applications were barred by the two-year limitation period.
The Tribunal found that the insurer had provided clear and unequivocal denials of the IRBs, along with the required dispute resolution options, more than two years before the applications were filed.
The Tribunal declined to extend the limitation period, finding no reasonable grounds to do so, and dismissed the applications as statute-barred.
Summary judgment denied as conflicting evidence regarding an alleged set-off agreement required a trial.
The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment for unpaid invoices for aluminum products supplied to the defendant.
The defendant did not dispute the debt but claimed a right of set-off based on an alleged joint venture agreement with the plaintiff regarding a municipal contract.
The court found that the conflicting evidence regarding the set-off agreement constituted a genuine issue for trial that could not be resolved on the affidavit evidence.
The motion for summary judgment was dismissed.
Insurer's eve-of-hearing request for a medical examination deemed unreasonable due to avoidable delay.
The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought ongoing income replacement benefits.
Less than three weeks before the arbitration hearing, the insurer requested that the applicant attend an insurer's medical examination (IE) with an orthopaedic surgeon in Toronto.
The applicant, who lived in Port Dover, refused to attend on short notice.
The arbitrator held that the insurer's request was unreasonable, finding that the insurer had delayed requesting the IE for over five years without adequate justification.
The arbitrator concluded that allowing the late request would amount to trial brinkmanship and unfairly prejudice the applicant by likely necessitating an adjournment of the hearing.
