October 31, 2023

LAT CASELAW - October 2023

Welcome to your Hallowe'en 2023 NewsLATter.

In this issue:

Listen to our LAT Seminar on the New Rules
Read about case-splitting and adding further evidence after the defence is complete
Learn what the LAT said about when to apply post-June 2016 CAT determination
And the LAT weighs in on whether not knowing about a benefit is a reasonable explanation for a delay in applying for the benefit.

In September, our LAT team produced a 1 hour webinar on the New Rules and what to expect. Click here to listen to the webinar on-the-go on your Spotify app.

LAT Determines That Applying the CAT Definition as Outlined in the Legislation at the Time of the Accident is the Most “Harmonious Interpretation” by Adam Imtiaz

Summer Student, Adam Imtiaz blogged on the case of Banga v. Certas Home and Auto Insurance Company, Adjudicator Norris found that CAT definitions from the 2016 Statutory Accident Benefit Schedule applied to an accident which took place before the 2016 Schedule came into effect.

Read about the importance of this decision on our website..

Get It Right the First Time, Because Reply is Not a Second Kick at the Can by Juny Kim

In Spence v. Aviva General Insurance the case conference report and order set forth the filing requirements for the exchange of written submissions and evidence between the parties, including applicant replies to respondent submissions. The respondent brought a motion asking that the new evidence and arguments raised in the applicant’s reply submissions be struck from the evidentiary record.

Adjudicator Janet Rowsell partially granted the respondent’s request following well-settled law against “case splitting” .

To read Juny Kim's complete blog, please click here.

Late NEB Claim not Excusable – Failure to Submit OCF 3 Bars Claim Prior to its Submission by Adel Pippo

Student, Adel Pippo, blogs on the case of Boutros v Economical Insurance Company. The takeaway lies in Adjudicator Ulana Pahuta’s decision on the preliminary issue, that the applicant is statute-barred from proceeding with her claim for Non-Earner Benefits (“NEBs”). This decision is a reminder that being unaware of a benefit for a period of time is not a reasonable explanation for an insured’s delay in applying for the benefit.

Read Adel's complete blog h ere.