Mai Nguyen

The respondent insurer brought a preliminary issue seeking to dismiss the applicant's claim for income replacement benefits as statute-barred.

The insurer argued that it sent a letter terminating benefits more than two years before the application was commenced.

The applicant and his counsel denied receiving the termination letter.

The adjudicator applied the discoverability principle and found that the limitation period began to run when the applicant's counsel received a subsequent letter from the insurer indicating that benefits had been stopped.

Based on this date of discoverability, the application was commenced within the two-year limitation period.

The insurer's motion to dismiss was denied, and its request for expenses was dismissed.

The appellant appealed an order refusing to set aside a default judgment.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no reason to interfere with the motion judge's assessment that the appellant failed to offer a plausible explanation for her default, as she had advanced a patently false assertion that she was not the person named in the statement of claim.