The claimant signed an SDN and Release on September 6, 2012 in relation to certain accident benefits, but not the entire claim (i.e. a partial release). The claimant alleged that the settlement he entered into was not a full and final settlement. He argued that the settlement was not governed by Regulation 664 or alternatively, that the settlement was not valid due to non-compliance by the insurer. However, he did not provide adequate notice to the insurer that he was rescinding the settlement within two business days of its execution as was required under the SDN, nor did he repay any of the settlement funds. Adjudicator Reilly stated that the burden of proof lay with the claimant, as it was the claimant who was seeking to invalidate the settlement. She rejected the claimant’s argument that the SDN was not governed by Regulation 664 because the settlement did not settle his IRBs and medical benefits on a full and final basis. She held that the SABS provided that a settlement described a final disposition of a claim to one or more benefits and did not require all benefits to be settled on a final basis. Adjudicator Reilly held that the insurer had complied with Regulation 664 as it had clearly indicated how and when the claimant would be able to rescind the settlement. Finally, she found that the claimant could not apply to the LAT for benefits that were settled without rescinding the settlement and repaying the settlement funds. Adjudicator Reilly declared the settlement valid and dismissed the claimant’s application.
