The claimant applied to the LAT seeking entitlement to accident benefits. A preliminary issues hearing was held to determine: (1) whether the claimant was disentitled to accident benefits because he did not have a reasonable explanation for failing to comply with the time limit imposed by s. 32(1) of the SABS, and (2) whether the claimant was barred by s. 55(1)1 of the SABS from commencing the LAT application because he had not notified the insurer of the circumstances giving rise to the claim for benefits or he had not submitted an application for benefits within the timelines prescribed by the SABS. The parties agreed that the claimant applied for accident benefits 11 months after the accident. The issue was whether the claimant had a reasonable explanation for the delay and was entitled to apply for benefits pursuant to s. 34 of the SABS. The claimant was driving his uncle’s vehicle at the time of the accident. The uncle notified his insurer of the accident within the prescribed timelines, but the claimant did not notify his own insurer of the accident or claim benefits until 11 months post-accident. The claimant said that he thought it was sufficient for the uncle to notify his insurer, and the claimant was not aware that he had to contact his own insurer to apply for benefits. Applying the six factors from the FSCO decision in Horvath v. Allstate, Adjudicator Paluch found that the claimant’s explanation was credible and worthy of belief, but the claimant did not meet his onus of establishing that the explanation was “reasonable.” In particular, Adjudicator Paluch found that ignorance of the law/the insurance policy is not a reasonable explanation. The claimant was barred from applying to the LAT pursuant to s. 55(1)1 of the SABS.
