1 total
Limitation period not triggered because insurer's denial letter failed to explain dispute rights and time limits.
The applicant sought income replacement benefits following a motor vehicle accident.
The respondent insurer stopped paying the benefits and argued the applicant was barred from proceeding to a hearing because he failed to dispute the denial within the two-year limitation period under section 56 of the Schedule.
The Tribunal found that the respondent's denial letter was invalid because it failed to explain the applicant's right to dispute the termination or reference the two-year limitation period, as required by Smith v. Co-operators.
Consequently, the limitation period was not triggered, and the applicant was permitted to proceed to a hearing.
