Articling student, Aylina Dhanji, blogs on the recent case, Tyulyakov v Allstate Insurance Company of Canada, where Adjudicator Stephanie Kepman found that the Applicant was barred from proceeding with his application for an IRB because he failed to notify the respondent of the circumstances giving rise to the claim for said benefit pursuant to section 55(1) of the SABS (the “Schedule”). The Applicant in this case was involved in two accidents, and this dispute related to his first accident. Adjudicator Kepman found that the Applicant had only submitted (and then withdrawn) an OCF-3 relating to the claim number for the second accident. While the Applicant argued that the OCF-3 was submitted in relation to both accidents, this argument was rejected based on the facts (and OCF-3) before the LAT.
Read about the importance of this decision on our website.
Branson Wongblogs about a recent decision where Vice Chair Ian Maedel rescinded on reconsideration his initial decision in this case. In the initial decision, Vice Chair Maedel determined (for the first time) how to calculate IRBs post-age 65 where collateral income benefits were paid to age 65 (he held that the amount to be used in the calculation of post-age 65 IRBS should not include the collateral deductions.). On reconsideration, he held that his ruling had been an error of fact and law, as the issue of entitlement and post-age 65 quantum was never an issue in dispute before the Tribunal, and no submissions were made by either party on same.
Peter Durant and ZTGH student, Juny Kim, blog on Varriano v. Allstate Insurance Company of Canada, 2023 ONCA 78 (“Varriano”), where the Ontario Court of Appeal reversed the Divisional Court’s finding and held that the insurer was not required to provide medical reasons for the stoppage of an insured’s Income Replacement Benefits (“IRBs”).
Jonathan Wongwrites on a recent decision from the LAT which addresses an issue that is anticipated to appear with greater frequency as the LAT grows longer in the tooth and the various limitation periods outlined in the SABS begin to bump up against each other.In this decision, Vice Chair Flude held that the time limitations in the Schedule to make a claim for medical and rehabilitation and attendant care benefits pursuant to a non-catastrophic claim (260 weeks) does not act as an absolute bar for the payment of such benefits; rather, the two year post-denial limitation was the controlling provision.
Peter Duranthas been a partner at ZTGH since 2015 and is co-chair of our LAT and Loss Transfer/Priority disputes practice groups. He was called to the bar in both Ontario and Newfoundland and has trial experience at the both the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador and the Ontario Superior Court of Justice. In addition to his tort and accident benefit work, Peter also has a Certificate in Clinical Risk, Negligence and Claims Management in Health Care from Osgoode.
“I have been working with Peter for over 10 years and we have worked on several different projects including chairing the loss transfer and priority group. I can’t imagine the past decade at ZTGH without him, he is a fabulous colleague and friend – smart, hilarious, and kind.” – Nathalie Rosenthall
If you haven’t spent any time with Peter, he is very funny and makes us laugh at every meeting. Recently, he has been hosting lunch time webinars on the LAT and priority disputes. You can listen to his latest webinar, co-hosted with Rebecca Brown Greer on ourwebsite or Spotify podcast channel.
