|
LAT - Limitations. Landa v. The Dominion of Canada General Insurance Company
In Landa v. The Dominion of Canada General Insurance Company (Div Court, 2024) the Divisional Court dismissed a LAT-SABS appeal, which focussed on the Insurance Act [Reg. 34/10: SABS - Sept 1, 2010] s.56 two-year limitation, and - separately - the LATA s.7 ['Extension of time'] limitation provision as it applied to SABS matters. This case was one of the first Yatar joint appeal/JR cases, which allow attempts to include review of 'fact' and 'mixed fact and law' issues within otherwise 'questions of law'-limited appeals:[9] The Vice Chair considered whether Dominion issued valid denials to trigger the limitation period. The limitation period begins when an insurer gives a clear and unequivocal denial of a benefit that is accompanied by notice of the two-year period for commencing the dispute resolution process. ...
[10] Finally, the Vice Chair considered whether to extend timelines to extend the limitation period to allow Ms. Landa’s claim to proceed. The Vice Chair relied on the LAT decision of SS v. Certas Home and Auto Insurance Company, 2016 CanLII 153125 (ON LAT) in holding that the Licence Appeal Tribunal Act, 1999, S.O. 1999, c. 12, Sched. G (“LATA”), does not allow for an extension of time for a proceeding under the SABS. She therefore determined that she had no jurisdiction to grant an extension of time.
....
[42] Under s. 56 of the 2010 Schedule and s. 51 of the 1996 Schedule, LAT proceedings under the Insurance Act must be commenced within two years of the insurer’s denial of benefits. Section 7 of the LATA provides that the LAT may extend the time for commencing a proceeding where it “is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for applying for the extension and for granting relief.”
[43] As noted above, at the time that the LAT rendered its October 9, 2020 Preliminary Issue Decision and its December 23, 2020 Reconsideration Decision, the LAT’s case law was divergent on whether s. 7 of the LATA allowed the LAT to extend the limitation period in the Schedule. However, this Court subsequently held in Fratarcangeli v. North Blenheim Mutual Insurance Company, 2021 ONSC 3997 (Div. Ct.) at para. 61 that the LAT has that authority. On its own initiative, the LAT reconsidered the Preliminary Issue Decision a second time.
[44] To determine whether to grant an extension of time under s. 7 of the LATA, the LAT generally considers four factors which it must weigh in order to determine whether the justice of the case requires granting the extension. The four factors are set out by the Divisional Court in Manuel v. Registrar, 2012 ONSC 1492 (Div. Ct.) at paras. 13-17 and 40 (“Manuel”):1. The existence of a bona fide intention to appeal within the appeal period;
2. The length of the delay;
3. Prejudice to the other party; and,
4. The merits of the appeal. [45] The LAT noted that Manuel directs a holistic analysis of these factors, no single factor is determinative, an extension should not be granted unless the “justice of the case” requires it, and the onus is on Ms. Landa to establish that there are reasonable grounds for granting an extension.
....
[48] The decision not to extend the time is a discretionary one to which this court owes considerable deference. Ms. Landa has not demonstrated an error in principle. There was documentary evidence to support the facts as found, and “it is not the role of the court in this appeal to ‘second-guess’ the weight to be given to the evidence nor to interfere with the inferences drawn from the facts as found.” (Fratarcangeli, at para. 85). Ms. Landa has not established that the reconsideration decision was unreasonable.
|
