Print

 

 Volume. 6 Issue. 39 – October 5, 2022


This week features a “deep dive” into a decision in which the insurer contested whether an incident, wherein the Applicant fell on ice while exiting the vehicle, satisfied the definition of “accident” under the Schedule, after more than four years of having paid benefits post accident.

The Tribunal, in ‘Four+ Years After the Fact Too Late to Contest “Accident”’ considers the implications of the procedures for claiming benefits under s.32 of the Schedule, in context of the consumer protection mandate of the Schedule. This context is also front and center in a determination that the incident was for a fact an “accident”.


Need help finding cases? Reach out to our Live Chat Experts for guided searches!



Cannot Contest “Accident” More Than Four Years Later

Four+ Years After the Fact Too Late to Contest “Accident” – The Applicant, Harland-Bettany, received benefits for several years resulting from a February 2017 incident, however Aviva subsequently, in 21-005099 v Aviva, raised a preliminary issue in September 2021, suggesting that the incident did not meet the definition of “accident” under the Schedule.

Aviva suggested that case law had found numerous such incidents not being defined as “accidents”, while Harland-Bettany argued that the act of exiting the vehicle had significantly impacted her fall. Harland-Bettany also argued that “too much time has passed for the respondent to now challenge whether the incident was an “accident”. The Tribunal specifically asked of the parties whether s. 32 of the Schedule played any role in the dispute, the provision that addresses the steps insurers and individuals must follow when first applying for accident benefits

The Tribunal referenced s.32, noting specifically that upon receipt of an application, the “insurer has 10 business days to review the application and potentially inform the applicant that something in the application is missing…(and) the insurer must first conduct “a reasonable review of the incomplete application” before alerting the applicant that “without the missing information” it cannot determine “whether a benefit is payable”. These provisions “provide a means for ensuring the timely receipt and adjusting of an initial application for accident benefits. They also specify what an insurer must do to remedy deficiencies it finds in an application, with a corresponding penalty if an applicant fails to comply.”

Ultimately, the Tribunal found that Aviva “did not raise this preliminary issue in a timely fashion, such that it has missed its opportunity to challenge whether the incident constituted an “accident” under the Schedule.” It was noted that following receipt of Harland-Bettany’s application, Aviva sent her a letter confirming benefits to which she was entitled to apply for. This was the time during which Aviva “was required to determine if there was something missing in the application that left it unable to determine “whether a benefit is payable.” However, Aviva, despite its current contention, never sought any further information with respect to whether an “accident” had taken place. Rather, Aviva continued to pay benefits for several years, absent any indication as to any reservations as to whether an “accident” had occurred.

It was further noted that there was “no indication of what changed between the respondent’s acceptance of the incident as an “accident” in March 2017, and the case conference in September 2021. Instead, the incident described in the OCF-1 mirrors the applicant’s description of the incident in her March 2022 affidavit.” While there is no limitation period regarding concerns over whether an “accident” occurred, “the mandatory language of s. 32 cannot be swept aside, especially when there is no indication of what has altered an insurer’s understanding of the incident in question.”

With the Schedule’s mandate of consumer protection, same would be “imperiled if an insurer could disregard its obligations under s. 32, and then raise questions about an applicant’s application years later. There are also concerns about procedural fairness, as delaying the adjudication of this fundamental question means evidence about the incident will deteriorate over time. All these factors lean in favour of finding this preliminary issue is untimely.” The Tribunal did not stop there however, finding that, while not strictly required, there would have been a finding that the incident did for a fact constitute an “accident” under the Schedule.

The Tribunal, in not accepting Aviva’s argument that the ice was an “intervening act”, found that the “dominant feature” consideration was the most helpful in these circumstances. This required an analysis as to “the aspect of the situation that most directly caused the injuries”. The Tribunal was “satisfied that both the ice and “the ordinary and well-known” activity of exiting a vehicle were the equally dominant features of the incident.” The “applicant’s twisting movement during the ongoing exit acted in conjunction with the ice to create the circumstances that led to this incident, and, by extension, her injuries.”

The Tribunal considered cases submitted by Aviva wherein the ultimate falling on ice was found to be an “intervening act”. However, these cases did not “allow for the possibility that a number of other factors may be at play. This ability to account for and weigh different causes is the underlying value of the “dominant feature” consideration.” The Tribunal was satisfied that the factors of ice and exiting of the vehicle were both the dominant feature, and “in light of the consumer protection mandate, I find it may be necessary to consider more than one dominant feature.” The Tribunal was unable to say which feature “most directly caused the injuries”. In light of this ambiguity, the consumer protection mandate directs adjudicators to accept the interpretation that best meets the remedial nature of the Schedule.” Concluding, “I am not satisfied that the remedial nature of the Schedule would be upheld if this ambiguity allowed for a situation where coverage was denied.”



Access inHEALTH’s research resources through Live Chat and receive your OAR. Get It now!

 

Archive of LAT Updates

March 27, 2024: Supreme Court Takes Issue with Tribunal, Divisional Court & Court of Appeal

Limitation Period, Reconsideration, Supreme Court

March 25, 2024: Expert’s Conclusory Statement Insufficient on Pre-existing Condition

MIG

March 20, 2024: Non-Compliance by Both Parties Impacts IRB and Medical Claims

IRB

March 18, 2024: No Weight Afforded to Handwritten Illegible CNR’s

MIG

March 13, 2024: Denials Deficient and Pain Relief Validates Treatment Plans

Treatment Plans

March 11, 2024: “Radicular Irritation” & MRI Findings Not MVA Related

MIG

March 6, 2024: Tribunal Upholds Decision Excluding Improperly Secured IEs From the Evidence

Evidence, IE, Reconsideration

March 4, 2024: Concussion and Chronic Pain Diagnoses Require Expertise

MIG

February 28, 2024: Prior Health Concerns Complicate Claim for CAT

CAT

February 26, 2024: Unchallenged Virtual Chronic Pain Assessment Accepted

MIG

February 21, 2024: Consent by Parties for Adjournment Not Determinative

Adjournment, Procedure

February 14, 2024: Tribunal Does Not Accept the CAT Findings of Either Party

CAT

February 12, 2024: MIG Escape on Concussion Diagnosis Despite Resolution of Symptoms

MIG

February 7, 2024: Financial Hardship Not A Defense for Repayment Responsibility

IRB

February 5, 2024: CT Scan of Wrist Fracture Contradicts Medical Opinion

MIG

January 29, 2024: Concussion Despite No Head Injury?

MIG

January 24, 2024: One Assessment Process Produces Two Discrete Reports

CAT, Productions

January 22, 2024: Defective Notices Do Not Trigger Limitation

MIG

January 17, 2024: Election Not Required, LAT Act Invoked & Limits Exhausted?

Award, Limitation Period

January 15, 2024: Chronic Pain Diagnosis Contradicted by Self-Reports

MIG

January 10, 2024: NEB Reinstated After Six Years Generates Award

Award, NEB

January 8, 2024: Undisputed Psychological Diagnosis Prevails

MIG

January 3, 2024: Significant & Competing Price of Non-Compliance for Both Parties

Non-Compliance

December 20, 2023 (Throwback Edition): Statutory Relief Within Tribunal’s Jurisdiction

Jurisdiction

December 18, 2023: ‘Incident’ of Viewing Video Not Use and Operation

MIG

December 13, 2023 (Throwback Edition): Employed Applicant Remains Entitled to Post 104 IRB

IRB

December 11, 2023: Chronic Pain Diagnosis In Absence of Physical Exam?

MIG

December 6, 2023: Four Marked Impairments for 2010 MVA

CAT

December 4, 2023: No Adverse Inference Drawn Despite Lack of pre MVA CNRs

MIG

November 29, 2023 (THROWBACK EDITION): 18 Month Delayed Notice Reasonable, However 7 Month Delay is Not

Limitation Period

November 27, 2023: Confirmed High Bar to Escape MIG on Pre-Existing

MIG

November 22, 2023: Multiple IEs Excluded From Evidence

IE, Evidence

November 20, 2023: Radiculopathy Complaint Requires a Diagnosis

MIG

November 15, 2023: Court Applies Tomec & CAT Decision Varied

CAT, Limitation Period

November 13, 2023: Insurer Expert Conclusion Inconsistent with Findings

MIG

November 8, 2023: Maximum Award in Excess of $60K on CAT Case

CAT

November 6, 2023: Medical Evidence Overrides Legal Referrals

MIG

November 1, 2023: Eighteen Month Delayed Notice Reasonable However Seven Month Delay is Not

Limitation Period

October 30, 2023: Which MVA Exacerbated Injuries?

MIG

October 25, 2023: Application Seeking CAT Determination an Abuse of Process

CAT

October 23, 2023: Functional Disability Despite 50 Hour Work Week

MIG

October 18, 2023: Statutory Relief Renders Equitable Remedy Moot

Div Court

October 16, 2023: Injuries Not Static - MIG Determined Again

MIG

October 11, 2023: CERB is Income However Not “Gross Employment Income”

IRB

October 4, 2023: Employed Applicant Remains Entitled to Post 104 IRB

IRB

October 2, 2023: ‘IE’ Does Not Establish Causation

MIG

September 27, 2023: Post June 1 CAT Criterion 8 Satisfied

CAT

September 25, 2023: Chronic Pain Distinct from Recurring Pain

MIG

September 20, 2023: Expert Opinion Not Required for IRB Entitlement

IRB

September 18, 2023: Inconsistency Argument Not Accepted

MIG

September 13, 2023: IRB Payment Delayed Four Years – 20% Award

Award, IRB

September 11, 2023: MIG Determined Absent Applicants Written Submissions

MIG

August 30, 2023: Pain Determinative in Successful Post June 1 CAT Case

CAT

August 28, 2023: Knee Injury from MVA Caused Slip and Fall & ACL Tear?

MIG

August 23, 2023: WSIB Placement Qualifies for IRB

IRB

August 21, 2023: Absence of Applicant’s Medicals A Difference Maker

MIG

Contact Sales

416.364.6688

Contact Support

Contact Us

InHealth

11 Allstate Parkway Suite 203
Markham, Ontario
L3R 9T8

Follow Us On