Category: Election

P.B. v. Aviva Insurance Company of Canada (18-009287)

The claimant filed a request for reconsideration arising from a decision in which the Tribunal found that the OCF-10 election by the claimant was final, and that the claimant was not entitled to a non-earner benefit. Adjudicator Watt dismissed the request for reconsideration, noting that the claimant was simply trying to re-argue its case, and that a reconsideration was not an opportunity to do so.

Lefebvre v. Aviva Insurance Company of Canada (2018 ONSC 5676)

The claimant sought judicial review of the Tribunal’s decision that she could not pursue specified benefits because she had not completed and returned an election prior to applying to the LAT. The Court dismissed the review. The Court held that the claimant’s failure to submit the election, contrary to section 35 of the SABS, meant that her application was incomplete. The claimant’s submission of an election (for NEBs) after the Case Conference did not retroactively validate her claim. The Court indicated that the claimant could re-apply to the LAT once the insurer had made a decision on the claim for NEBs.

K.W. v. Unifund Assurance Company (17-001606)

The claimant sought entitlement to IRBs. The claimant provided the respondent with an OCF-10 electing a NEB. The claimant applied to the LAT regarding her entitlement to NEB, but subsequently submitted an amended application changing her claim from a NEB to an IRB. This preliminary issue hearing was brought to determine if the claimant was entitled to re-elect and pursue her claim for IRBs. Adjudicator Paluch concluded that the claimant was precluded from electing IRB as she had already made a valid election and chose a NEB. There is no right to change that election unless the claimant is catastrophically impaired.

D.S. v. Certas Home and Auto Insurance Company (16-000279)

A completed OCF-3 was submitted; the claimant was said to have not met the test for NEBs. An OCF-10 was submitted whereby the claimant elected NEBs. The insurer sought a preliminary hearing to have the claimant’s claim for NEBs dismissed without a hearing. Adjudicator Pay concluded that the claimant was still entitled to pursue a claim for NEBs despite the original OCF-3 not supporting NEBs.

Applicant v. Dominion of Canada General Insurance Company (16-000063)

The claimant applied to the LAT for both NEBs and IRBs. This preliminary hearing was to determine whether the claimant was entitled to litigate claims for both NEBs and IRBs. Adjudicator Marzinotto held that the insurer should have provided an election to the claimant, but had failed to do so. As a result, the claimant was permitted to procced to a hearing on claims for both NEBs and IRBs.