LAT Has Jurisdiction To Extend SABS Limitation Period

• Published date: 06 August 2021
• Subject Matter: Insurance, Litigation, Mediation & Arbitration, Insurance Laws and Products, Trials & Appeals & Compensation
• Law Firm: Rogers Partners LLP
• Author: Ms Athina Ionita

In Fratarcangeli v. North Blenheim Mutual Insurance Company, 2021 ONSC 3997, the Divisional Court held that the Licence Appeal Tribunal (the "LAT") has the power, under section 7 of the Licence Appeal Tribunal Act (the "LAT Act"), to extend the two-year limitation period under section 56 of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule ("SABS") for commencing an application in respect of a benefit under, bringing clarity to this issue. Prior to this decision, the LAT was divided on whether it had jurisdiction to extend the limitation period. This decision now lays that debate to rest.

Introduction

This decision addressed three appeals heard together. In each of the underlying decisions, the adjudicators had addressed the issue of whether the LAT has jurisdiction to grant an extension of the limitation period pursuant to s. 7 of the LAT Act. In two of the three matters under appeal, the adjudicator had concluded that they had jurisdiction under s. 7, and granted an extension of time.

In the third matter, however, the adjudicator determined that s. 7 did not grant jurisdiction to extend the s. 56 limitation period, and that the applications to the LAT were brought out of time.

Legislation

Section 56 of the SABS prescribes a two-year time limit for bringing applications, stating:

An application under subsection 280 (2) of the Act in respect of a benefit shall be commenced within two years after the insurer's refusal to pay the amount claimed.

Section 7 of the LAT Act states:

Despite any limitation of time fixed by or under any Act for the giving of any notice requiring a hearing by the Tribunal or an appeal from a decision or order of the Tribunal under section 11 or under any other Act, if the Tribunal is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for applying 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.

The Divisional Court considered that there are two issues relating to whether s. 7 of the LAT Act allows the limitation period to be extended:

(1) Whether s. 7 has no application to disputes concerning the denial of benefits under the SABS because the limitation period is fixed under a regulation and not "by or under any Act" within the meaning of s. 7; and,

(2) Whether s. 7 does not apply because an application to the LAT for the resolution of a...