The claimant applied to the LAT disputing entitlement to IRBs. The insurer brought a preliminary motion arguing that the claimant was barred from disputing entitlement due to the two-year limitation period, as the application was made six years after the accident. Adjudicator McGee disagreed and found that the claimant could proceed with his dispute. Adjudicator McGee reviewed the case law submitted by both parties and noted that the question of whether the discoverability principle applied to IRBs was unsettled. In this case, the claimant returned to work after the accident and worked for a number of years. The insurer terminated the claimant’s IRB within the 7-day waiting period because of his return to work. Then, several years later, the claimant was unable to work and renewed his claim for IRBs. The insurer argued that the initial denial letter started the limitation period clock. Adjudicator McGee disagreed finding that it would be unreasonable and unfair to expect insured persons to make premature claims based on the possibility of not working in the future. Adjudicator McGee found that it would be an absurd result to expect that where an insured continues to work and mitigate losses that they should also dispute a denial of an IRB premised on their return to work. Adjudicator McGee found that even if she was wrong about the limitation period and discoverability, she would use her discretion afforded by s. 7 of the Licence Appeal Tribunal Act to extend the limitation period.
