For people fortunate enough to have a policy of long term
disability ("LTD") benefits, they will typically need to
refer to the specific wording of their policy before knowing what
steps they have to take and what rights they might have once their
insurer has decided to cut off their benefits.
Most LTD policies will have two important periods. The
first period is commonly referred to as the "own
occupation" period. Quite often, the own occupation
period will last for the first two years of disability.
However, this might vary depending on a specific terms of one's
policy. The second period is commonly referred to as the
"any occupation period". The any occupation period
begins at the end of the own occupation period and usually lasts
until an individual turns 65 years old.
During the own occupation period, a person is typically required
to prove that he or she is substantially unable to complete the
necessary tasks of his or her employment, to receive a long term
disability benefit. During the any occupation period, a
person is typically required to prove that he or she is
substantially unable to complete the necessary tasks of
any employment that he or she is reasonably suited for by
skill, education and training, before that person can recover an
LTD benefit. Many people find that they are approved for an LTD
benefit during the own occupation period, only to have their
benefits cut off by an insurer when the any occupation period
LTD claimants should also be aware of their obligations under
their LTD policy. For example, many LTD policies will require
an individual to apply for Canada Pension Plan disability
benefits. Very often, if a person recovers CPP disability
benefits, these benefits will be deducted from the LTD
benefit. For example, if an individual is entitled to an LTD
benefit of $900 per month but receives CPP disability benefits in
the amount of $700 per month, then the LTD insurer will only pay
the individual $200 per month. Individuals should also be
aware of whether their LTD benefit is a taxable or non-taxable
It's not often that our little blog intersects with such titanic struggles as the U.S. presidential race – and by using the term "titanic" I certainly don't mean to suggest that anything disastrous is in the future.
J.J. v. C.C., is an interesting case in which the court held that an automotive garage owes a duty to minor children to secure the vehicles on the premises by locking the cars and safely storing the car keys...
In Irwin v. Alberta Veterinary Medical Association, 2015 ABCA 396, the Alberta Court of Appeal found that the "ABVMA" failed to afford procedural fairness to a veterinarian undergoing an incapacity assessment.
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).