A preliminary issue hearing was held to address whether the claimant was barred from proceeding with her claim for IRBs due to failure to commence an application within the two year limitation period. The claimant submitted that the insurer was estopped from arguing that the limitation period and the legislation ought to be construed in her favour because the Schedule is consumer protection law. Adjudicator Farlam found that pursuant to section 56, the claim was statute-barred because her LAT application was made three years after the limitation period expired. The Schedule, even as consumer protection legislation, does not relieve the claimant of her obligation to comply with the limitation period. The claimant sought, in the alternative, relief from the expiry of the limitation period under section 7 of the Schedule. Adjudicator Farlam found that after consideration of all four of the relevant factors, that the case did not warrant the extension of the limitation period as the claimant failed to show a good faith intention to initiate a claim within the limitation period.
