Skip to the content
  • Areas of Practice
  • Mediation
  • Our Lawyers
  • News
  • Case Summaries
    • LAT Law Cases
    • Commercial/Tort Law Cases
  • Areas of Practice
  • Mediation
  • Our Lawyers
  • News
  • Case Summaries
    • LAT Law Cases
    • Commercial/Tort Law Cases

LAT Case Law Summaries

Commercial/Tort Case Law Summaries

Back To All Case Summaries
Back To All Case Summaries

Tamayo v. Travelers Insurance (20-014625)

  • August 3, 2022

The claimant disputed entitlement to IRBs and 10 treatment plans via a LAT Application filed on December 9, 2020 and a hearing was arranged to commence in November of 2022. The insurer filed a motion and raised a limitation defence under s. 56, arguing that the claimant failed to challenge the denial of IRBs within the two year limitation period. The claimant admitted that the Application was filed late, but requested that the LAT use s. 7 of the LAT Act to extend the time period. IRBs were denied by letter dated May 25, 2018, however the deemed arrival of the letter did not occur until June 1, 2018, which the insurer did not contest. As such, the two-year limitation mark would be June 1, 2020. Adjudicator Mazerolle applied s. 2 of O. Reg. 73/20 (the COVID regulation tolling limitation periods), meaning that the deadline to file a LAT Application was deemed to be December 1, 2020 with the extension period applied. The claimant had filed their application on December 9, 2020, eight days after the extended limitation period had lapsed. Adjudicator Mazerolle used s. 7 of the LAT Act to allow the late filing of the Application, noting that a delay of eight days was not excessive, that a November 12, 2020 letter requesting the AB file toward filing a LAT Application was an intent to appeal the IRB denial, and that there appeared to some merit to the claimant’s case, including a letter noting approval for CPP disability benefits in late 2020. While Adjudicator Mazerolle did admit that the insurer would be prejudiced from the missed limitation period, a delay of eight days would not be significant enough prejudice to not extend the limitation period.

Full decision here

TGP Analysis

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Vestibulum placerat ex vitae dui dignissim, in iaculis tellus venenatis. Nam aliquet mauris eros. Mauris vitae justo sit amet nisi dictum euismod in sed nisl. Donec blandit, justo eu pellentesque sodales, eros urna dignissim tortor, non imperdiet enim massa ut orci. Pellentesque id lacus viverra, consectetur neque ac, congue lorem.

PrevPrevious Case
Next CaseNext
  • FILED UNDER Limitation Period
SHARE

Contact Us

150 York Street, Suite 1800
Toronto, Ontario M5H 3S5

416.507.1800

416.507.1850

eodonnell@tgplawyers.com

  • Areas of Practice
  • Mediation
  • Our Lawyers
  • News
  • Case Summaries
  • Careers

Contact Us

150 York Street, Suite 1800
Toronto, Ontario M5H 3S5

416.507.1800

416.507.1850

eodonnell@tgplawyers.com

© 2020 Thomas Gold Pettingill LLP Disclaimer | Privacy Policy | Statement of Principles

Powered by Crow & Pitcher

Contact Us

150 York Street, Suite 1800
Toronto, Ontario M5H 3S5

416.507.1800

416.507.1850

eodonnell@tgplawyers.com