Clarity At Last ' Section 7 Of The LAT Act And The Extension Of Limitations Periods At The LAT

• Published date: 19 August 2021
• Subject Matter: Insurance, Insurance Laws and Products
• Law Firm: Rogers Partners LLP
• Author: Mr Alon Barda

There has been much confusion regarding the applicability of s.7 of the Licence Appeal Tribunal Act¹ (the 'LAT Act') in recent years. This was finally put to rest with the recent Divisional Court decision of Fratarcangeli v. North Blenheim Mutual Insurance Company² wherein it was held that the Licence Appeal Tribunal (the 'LAT') has jurisdiction under s. 7 of the LAT Act to extend the two-year time limit period for filing appeals set out in s. 56 of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule, O. Reg. 34/10 (the 'SABS').

Background

In A.F. v. North Blenheim Mutual Insurance Company ('A.F. v. North Blenheim'),³ the Executive Chair of the LAT reconsidered two decisions where the Tribunal applied the two-year limitation period under s.56 of the SABS and dismissed the claims as statute barred.

The Executive Chair on her own initiative ultimately held that it was a significant error of law for the Tribunal to not consider s.7 of the LAT Act and sent both matters back for a hearing on the application of s.7, which states as follows:

Despite any limitation of time fixed by or under any Act for the giving of any notice requiring a hearing by the Tribunal ' if the Tribunal is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for applying for the extension and for granting relief, it may,

(a) extend the time for giving the notice either before or after the expiration of the limitation of time so limited; and

(b) give the directions that it considers proper as a result of extending the time.

In her decision, the Executive Chair highlighted that the Tribunal, in determining whether to grant an extension of time under s.7 of the LAT Act, generally weighs the following four factors to determine whether the case is one that warrants an extension to be granted:

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.

Cases that followed the A.F. v. North Blenheim decision showed that the Tribunal was both applying s.7 and even doing so to relieve against missed limitation periods.⁴ However, in 18-001196 vs. Certas Home and Auto Insurance Company⁵ the application of s.7 was placed into a state of flux as Arbitrator Neilson found that the Tribunal did not have jurisdiction under s.7 of the LAT Act to extend the limitation periods.

Decisions were mixed thereafter and three cases ultimately made it to the Divisional Court on the issue of the application of s.7. The Licence Appeal...