3 total
Application for non-earner benefit dismissed as statute-barred; extension of time denied.
The applicant, who was a minor at the time of the motor vehicle accident, sought a non-earner benefit which was denied by the respondent insurer in 2012.
The applicant applied to the Licence Appeal Tribunal in 2017, more than two years after turning 18.
The respondent raised a preliminary issue that the application was statute-barred.
The Tribunal found that the 2012 denial was clear and unequivocal, triggering the limitation period when the applicant turned 18.
The Tribunal declined to extend the limitation period under section 7 of the Licence Appeal Tribunal Act, finding no bona fide intention to appeal within the time limit, an unreasonable delay, and prejudice to the respondent.
The application for the non-earner benefit was dismissed as statute-barred.
Statement of claim for bad faith in accident benefits administration struck for falling within LAT's exclusive jurisdiction.
The plaintiff sued her insurer for bad faith, negligence, and fraud in the administration of her statutory accident benefits claim following a motor vehicle accident.
The defendant insurer brought a Rule 21 motion to strike the statement of claim, arguing the Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) had exclusive jurisdiction under section 280 of the Insurance Act.
The court agreed, finding that the essential character of the dispute concerned the denial of accident benefits, which falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the LAT regardless of how the claim is legally characterized.
The statement of claim was struck without leave to amend.
Motion by appellant's representative to be removed from the record granted due to irrevocable breakdown in solicitor-client relationship.
The appellant's legal representative, McLeish Orlando LLP, brought a motion to be removed from the record, citing a material breakdown in communications and a loss of confidence.
The appellant opposed the motion, arguing that she had not lost confidence in her lawyer and wished for the firm to continue representing her.
The Director's Delegate found that the solicitor-client relationship had irrevocably broken down, as the appellant's own statements demonstrated a lack of confidence in her lawyer's advice and competence.
The motion to withdraw was granted.
