Shalini Thomas

The applicant sought production of particulars regarding any surveillance evidence obtained by the respondent after litigation privilege arose.

The adjudicator held that the respondent is not required to disclose the existence or particulars of surveillance obtained after litigation privilege arises unless they intend to rely on it at the hearing, as the Tribunal cannot order disclosure of privileged information under the Statutory Powers Procedure Act.

The adjudicator ordered that if the respondent intends to rely on surveillance, it must be produced by a specified date to allow the applicant's experts to comment.

A pedestrian struck by a vehicle in 2008 received statutory accident benefits for attendant care and housekeeping until the insurer terminated them in 2010.

In 2015, after receiving a catastrophic impairment designation, the claimant reapplied for benefits.

The Tribunal and Divisional Court found the claim was out of time based on a two-year limitation period.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the limitation period was subject to the rule of discoverability and was not a hard limitation period.

The court held that applying a hard limitation period would be contrary to the consumer protection purposes of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule and would produce an absurd result by barring claims before the claimant was eligible to make them.

The moving party sought either to have the Court of Appeal reconstitute itself as a panel of the Divisional Court to hear his appeal immediately after the appellant's appeal, or to be granted leave to intervene as a party in the appellant's appeal.

Both the moving party and the appellant were injured in motor vehicle accidents and had their statutory accident benefits claims denied.

The moving party argued that both appeals raised the same or similar issues regarding the application of the two-year limitation period for disputing the refusal of statutory accident benefits.

The court dismissed both requests, finding that allowing the moving party to bypass the Divisional Court would be improper absent compelling reasons, and that efficiency alone was insufficient justification for such an extraordinary step.

The applicant sought reconsideration of a Tribunal decision dismissing his application for attendant care and housekeeping benefits as statute-barred.

The applicant argued the insurer's denial letter was ambiguous, that subsequent payments negated the denial, and raised Charter and discoverability arguments.

The Tribunal dismissed the reconsideration request, finding the adjudicator made no significant errors of law.

The denial letter was clear and unequivocal, subsequent payments after the limitation period expired did not revive the claim, and the adjudicator properly declined the Charter argument due to lack of required notice.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a preliminary issue decision that found her claim for non-earner benefits was statute-barred.

The applicant argued the insurer's denial letter was not clear and unequivocal and that subsequent actions created reasonable doubt.

The Vice-Chair dismissed the request, finding no significant error of law or fact in the original decision, as the denial was clear and the insurer's subsequent actions were part of its ongoing obligation to adjust the file.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision which found her claim for attendant care and housekeeping benefits was statute-barred.

The applicant argued that the limitation period should not begin to run until she was found to be catastrophically impaired, relying on the doctrine of discoverability.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the limitation period under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule is a 'hard' limitation period triggered by the insurer's clear and unequivocal refusal to pay the benefit, regardless of whether the claimant is aware they have a claim at that time.

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.

The applicant sought attendant care and housekeeping benefits following a 2009 motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied the benefits in October 2011.

The applicant later sought the benefits at a higher tier after being determined catastrophically impaired, arguing the limitation period did not apply or was negated by subsequent payments.

The Tribunal found the 2011 denial letter was clear and unequivocal, triggering the two-year limitation period under the Insurance Act.

The Tribunal held that discoverability does not apply to the statutory accident benefits scheme and that a subsequent catastrophic impairment determination does not trigger a new limitation period.

The application was dismissed as statute-barred.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that dismissed her application for statutory accident benefits as time-barred.

The applicant argued that the two-year limitation period did not start to run until she was deemed catastrophically impaired and that the doctrine of discoverability applied.

The Executive Chair denied the request for reconsideration, finding that the request was filed late without an acceptable excuse.

Furthermore, the applicant failed to establish any significant error of law or fact in the Tribunal's original decision regarding the limitation period, the doctrine of discoverability, or the refusal to allow an expert witness.

The applicant brought a motion seeking production of all documentation relating to the stoppage, acceptance, payment, and subsequent denial of attendant care, housekeeping, and home maintenance benefits, and an order that the preliminary issue hearing be conducted orally rather than in writing.

The adjudicator dismissed the motion, finding that an oral hearing was not required as the evidence was documentary and the legal arguments were best presented in writing.

The adjudicator also declined to reconsider a previous order denying the broad production request, noting that equitable remedies like estoppel and waiver are beyond the Tribunal's jurisdiction and discoverability does not apply to statutory accident benefits.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits, including income replacement benefits, following a motor vehicle accident.

The applicant and his paralegal representative failed to appear at the scheduled arbitration hearing.

The arbitrator dismissed the application for arbitration because the applicant failed to meet the burden of proving his claim.

The applicant was ordered to pay $500 in expenses to the insurer.

The appellant challenged summary judgment dismissing her statutory accident benefits action for non-earner benefits as out of time.

The court held that a clear and unequivocal denial of benefits triggered the two-year limitation period, even though the insurer gave an incorrect legal reason for ineligibility.

The limitation period ran from the initial refusal of non-earner benefits, not from the later termination of income replacement benefits.

The court further held that neither the Insurance Act nor the SABS required the insurer to give renewed notice of a possible entitlement to a previously denied benefit upon termination of another benefit.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.