The Court of Appeal has once again confirmed an insurers'
right to the predictability of the two year limitation period in
Bonaccorso v. Optimum Insurance Company Inc., 2016 ONCA 34.
The plaintiff appealed the decision of Justice H.S. Arrell which
dismissed her claim for income replacement benefits by way of
summary judgment motion.
An accident occurred on February 4, 2008 injuring the
plaintiff. She returned to work on June 28, 2009 and Optimum
terminated entitlement to ongoing income replacement benefits as of
her return to work date. By correspondence dated February 8,
2010 Optimum wrote to the plaintiff confirming her income
replacement benefits were discontinued effective June 29, 2009.
This correspondence included an explanation of benefits
The plaintiff continued working until February 15, 2011, when
she left her employment allegedly due to accident related
injuries. She requested reinstatement of income replacement
benefits on July 13, 2012 and Optimum denied this request on July
20, 2012. Mediation was subsequently filed on October 9, 2012.
The crux of the plaintiff's argument before Justice Arrell
and the Court of Appeal was that the temporary return to work
section of the SABS (section 11) would serve to make the
termination of income replacement benefits premature.
On appeal, the court disagreed, finding that the limitation
period trumps the temporary return to work section of the SABS.
To allow otherwise would extend a claimant's entitlement
to income replacement benefits for an indeterminate amount of time,
which is inconsistent with the underlying purpose of the limitation
period; certainty and finality.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general
guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought
about your specific circumstances.
To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.
Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.
Automobile drivers, like fine wine, tend to get better with age. Older drivers can draw on a wealth of experience from their years on the road to assist them when faced by a variety of dangerous conditions.
Under B.C.'s former and current Limitation Act, the limitation period for a Plaintiff's claim can be extended on the basis of a Defendant having acknowledged in writing some liability for the cause of action.
The insurance industry will be interested in Ledcor Construction Ltd v. Northbridge Indemnity Insurance Co because of principles the Supreme Court of Canada applied to the "faulty workmanship" exclusion in a Builders' Risk policy.
The recent Preliminary Issue decision in Walsh and Echelon (FSCO A15-007448, August 31, 2016) confirms that an economic loss does not need to be demonstrated in order to be entitled to attendant care benefits.
For the first time in BC, a Court has decided that an insured is entitled to special costs, rather than the lower tariff costs, solely because they were successful in a coverage action against their insurer.
Policyholders recently won a key victory at the Supreme Court of Canada in Ledcor Construction Ltd. v. Northbridge Indemnity Insurance Co. as the Supreme Court clarified the interpretation of a standard form...
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).