Stephen H. Shantz

The defendant, Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada, brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's claim for short-term disability (STD) and long-term disability (LTD) benefits.

Sun Life argued that the STD claim was barred by an out-of-country exclusion in the policy, and the LTD claim was barred by a pre-existing condition exclusion.

The court found that the out-of-country exclusion did not suspend the 26-week maximum STD benefit period, thus denying further STD benefits due to the plaintiff's 16-week absence abroad.

For the LTD claim, the court held that the pre-existing condition exclusion applied, ruling that the severity of the pre-existing condition at the time coverage began was irrelevant, as long as the disability resulted directly or indirectly from it.

The motion for summary judgment was granted, dismissing both claims.

The third parties, Sun Life Financial Inc. and Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada, brought a motion to strike the defendants' third-party claim for contribution and indemnity.

The plaintiff had sued the defendants for wrongful termination, claiming damages for lost group benefits, including disability insurance.

The defendants' third-party claim asserted that if the plaintiff became totally disabled while covered by the third parties' policy, then the third parties would be liable.

The court granted the motion to strike, finding that the third-party claim disclosed no reasonable cause of action because the third parties were not alleged to have committed any tort or breach of contract, and the plaintiff's claim against the defendants was limited to damages flowing from wrongful dismissal, not from any fault of the third parties.

The defendant insurer brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's claim for long-term disability benefits on the basis that the plaintiff failed to submit a formal application for benefits.

The court found that the failure to submit a formal claim amounted to imperfect compliance rather than non-compliance, as the defendant had already adjudicated and denied the plaintiff's short-term disability claim and had notice of the long-term disability claim via a completed physician questionnaire.

The court granted the plaintiff relief from forfeiture, finding that the defendant suffered no substantial prejudice, and dismissed the defendant's motion for summary judgment.

The appellants appealed a summary judgment dismissing their action against the respondents as statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The motion judge found the appellants discovered their potential cause of action in May 2006, but did not commence the action until April 2018, well beyond the applicable limitation periods.

The Court of Appeal found no palpable and overriding error in the motion judge's conclusion regarding the discovery date and dismissed the appeal, affirming the application of the Limitations Act.

The defendant, Sunlife Assurance Company of Canada, brought a motion seeking an order to compel the plaintiff, Suzanne McGee, to undergo a neuropsychological evaluation and to adjourn the scheduled pre-trial and trial dates.

The defendant argued this was necessary due to a perceived change in opinion from the plaintiff's orthopedic expert following a Functional Abilities Evaluation (FAE).

The court found that the orthopedic expert's subsequent letter merely summarized the FAE's conclusions, which were outside his area of expertise, and did not constitute a new expert opinion requiring a response.

The court also noted the defendant had previously decided against obtaining its own FAE.

The motion was dismissed, and the defendant was ordered to pay costs to the plaintiff.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Superior Court of Justice dismissing her action on the basis of a limitation period and denying relief from forfeiture regarding her late filing of a long-term disability (LTD) claim with the insurer.

Although the respondent conceded that the application judge erred in finding the action was barred by a limitation period, the Court of Appeal found that the relief from forfeiture analysis stood independently and was not tainted by this error.

The Court upheld the application judge's discretionary decision to deny relief from forfeiture.

The appellant sought long-term disability (LTD) benefits from the respondent insurer following a motor vehicle accident while working.

The appellant initially collected Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (WSIB) benefits but retroactively elected to pursue a tort action against the other driver.

The respondent sought to offset LTD benefits by the amount of WSIB benefits for which the appellant was eligible, rather than the amount actually received.

The motion judge granted summary judgment for the respondent, finding no meaningful distinction from the precedent in Richer v. Manulife Financial.

The Court of Appeal upheld this decision, dismissing the appeal with costs.

The defendant insurer moved for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's claim for long-term disability (LTD) benefits, arguing that WSIB benefits available to the plaintiff should offset any LTD entitlement, even if the plaintiff elected to pursue a tort claim instead of WSIB.

The plaintiff opposed, arguing he was not eligible for WSIB benefits due to his election and that quantification was complex.

The court granted partial summary judgment to the defendant, confirming the insurer's right to apply a deemed offset for WSIB benefits the plaintiff *could have received* for the periods from November 26, 2012, to August 23, 2014, and from August 23, 2014, to June 1, 2015, effectively reducing LTD benefits to nil for these periods.

However, the motion was dismissed for the period after June 1, 2015, as there was insufficient evidence to determine the quantum of WSIB benefits that would have been available to the plaintiff.

The defendant Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's claim for disability benefits, arguing it was statute-barred by the Limitations Act, 2002.

The plaintiff contended that the limitation period had not started due to a lack of a clear and unequivocal denial, or alternatively, that a rolling limitation period applied.

The court found that the plaintiff's claim was discovered before October 30, 2010, making the action commenced in October 2012 outside the two-year limitation period.

The court also rejected the application of a rolling limitation period for claims concerning initial entitlement to benefits.

Consequently, the plaintiff's claim was dismissed.