The appellant insurer failed to give the respondent insurer the required 90-day written notice of its intention to dispute liability for statutory accident benefits under O. Reg. 283/95.
The appellant argued that a letter from the insured's counsel to the respondent constituted sufficient notice, and alternatively, that a subsequent change in case law justified an extension of the notice period.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that a third-party letter does not satisfy the strict notice requirements of the Regulation, that courts cannot grant equitable relief from forfeiture to bypass the statutory scheme, and that evolving jurisprudence does not render the 90-day period insufficient to make a liability determination.
