Print
 

 Volume. 5 Issue. 39- September 1, 2021



Does the insurer have to pay disability benefits when it fails to comply with notice provisions? It depends… You will need to have your SABS handy to follow the maze of application and notice requirements imposed on both the Applicant and Insurer in order to follow the Tribunal’s conclusion in this week’s cases.

We report on two cases where a failure to frame requests under s.33 in response to a claim for specified benefits impacts the insurer’s s.36(4) obligations, which sets out the following:

In response to an application for specified benefits, the insurer shall either, within 10 business days:

a) pay the specified benefits
b) provide a notice explaining the denial, and request an IE, if                  required; or
c) provide a s.33 request.

Advance your best case with for and against information. The investment is worth it! Submit your OAR request through Live Chat!

 



No Ultimate Cost for Respondent’s Non Compliance in Two Matters

Non Compliance Trumped by Non Compliance – Injured in a September 2015 accident, the Applicant in A.H. v Aviva (19-0046390), sought IRB from October 2016 to date and ongoing, contending that his disability began coincidently when his employment ended. The Tribunal ultimately found that the work stoppage was unrelated to any alleged accident related impairments, further noting that there was evidence of his working throughout much of 2017. In addition, A.H. had not tendered his initial OCF-3 until May 24, 2017, which the Tribunal fixed as the effective start date of any purported entitlement. Following receipt of the OCF-3, the Respondent notified A.H. of his obligation to complete an OCF-10 Election, as there was potential entitlement to both IRB and NEB.

Offering an alternative argument, A.H. indicated there to have been a failure on the Respondent’s part to comply with s.36(4) of the Schedule, until there was an IE requested October 30, 2017. Therefore, as per s.36(6), the Respondent was obliged to pay IRB from May 24 through to October 30. The Respondent countered that the issue of its noncompliance was rendered moot by the fact of A.H. having worked throughout the period in question. (While not explicitly set out, it appears that the noncompliance would be based upon the fact of the OCF10 request not having been framed under s.33, as per s.36(4)(c)). However, the Tribunal did not accept this argument as “Section 36(6) is a clear shall-pay provision.”

Despite this, the Tribunal found that any payment obligations under s.36 were never triggered, as A.H.’s failure to comply with the s.33 request for an Election results in his application for specified benefits being rendered incomplete. Therefore, there was no quantum payable, as A.H. himself was in non-compliance with the Schedule.

Ultimately No Price for Non-Compliance – Injured in a July 2018 accident, the Applicant in Parameswaralingam v Echelon (19-005907), was found not to have been entitled to IRB until April 25, 2019. This was the date the Tribunal found that Parameswaralingam had properly submitted a December 2018 OCF-3 and a February 2019 OCF-1.

Upon confirming receipt of this completed application, the Respondent sent an April 26, 2019 correspondence indicating in part: “Based on the information provided you qualify / don’t qualify for the following benefits: INCOME REPLACEMENT BENEFITS….” In addition, a number of documents were requested in order to establish the quantum of IRB payable.

The Tribunal found that the Respondent had breached its s.36(4) requirements, having failed to either pay IRB, or indicate reasons why they believed there not to be entitlement, provide notice under s.44 for an IE, or request further information under s.33 of the Schedule.

There were subsequent requests for information on September 9, 2019, and again on February 5, 2020, however again they were found not to comply with s.36(4), including the fact that there was no reference to s.33. It was not until February 24, 2020 that the Respondent for the first time specifically requested documentation under s.33. Therefore, this was the date upon which the Respondent complied with s.36(4), and as a result IRB was payable from April 25, 2019 through to February 24, 2020. Beyond this date, the Tribunal found that Parameswaralingam had failed to establish ongoing entitlement.

Despite this finding, ultimately the Tribunal found that Parameswaralingam had failed to provide sufficient particulars regarding his pre- and post-accident income to establish the quantum. Whereas he had provided an OCF-2 confirming his last four weeks earnings, the CRA confirmed that Parameswaralingam failed to file a 2018 tax return. Therefore, Parameswaralingam was precluded from relying upon same, as “an OCF-2 does not trump the requirement of s. 4(5).”

While Parameswaralingam had filed with the CRA for taxation year 2017, there was no way to determine how much, if any, of the reported income was within the required 52 weeks pre-accident. Further, T4s for taxation year 2019 again failed to allow for an understanding as to how much if any was earned during the non-compliance period in 2019, therefore post-accident income could not be determined. As a result, the Tribunal was unable to calculate IRB payable during the period of noncompliance.



Related LAT inFORMER issues:

CRA Filings Help and Hinder



Access inHEALTH’s research resources through Live Chat and receive your OAR. Get It now!

 

Archive of LAT Updates

March 27, 2024: Supreme Court Takes Issue with Tribunal, Divisional Court & Court of Appeal

Limitation Period, Reconsideration, Supreme Court

March 25, 2024: Expert’s Conclusory Statement Insufficient on Pre-existing Condition

MIG

March 20, 2024: Non-Compliance by Both Parties Impacts IRB and Medical Claims

IRB

March 18, 2024: No Weight Afforded to Handwritten Illegible CNR’s

MIG

March 13, 2024: Denials Deficient and Pain Relief Validates Treatment Plans

Treatment Plans

March 11, 2024: “Radicular Irritation” & MRI Findings Not MVA Related

MIG

March 6, 2024: Tribunal Upholds Decision Excluding Improperly Secured IEs From the Evidence

Evidence, IE, Reconsideration

March 4, 2024: Concussion and Chronic Pain Diagnoses Require Expertise

MIG

February 28, 2024: Prior Health Concerns Complicate Claim for CAT

CAT

February 26, 2024: Unchallenged Virtual Chronic Pain Assessment Accepted

MIG

February 21, 2024: Consent by Parties for Adjournment Not Determinative

Adjournment, Procedure

February 14, 2024: Tribunal Does Not Accept the CAT Findings of Either Party

CAT

February 12, 2024: MIG Escape on Concussion Diagnosis Despite Resolution of Symptoms

MIG

February 7, 2024: Financial Hardship Not A Defense for Repayment Responsibility

IRB

February 5, 2024: CT Scan of Wrist Fracture Contradicts Medical Opinion

MIG

January 29, 2024: Concussion Despite No Head Injury?

MIG

January 24, 2024: One Assessment Process Produces Two Discrete Reports

CAT, Productions

January 22, 2024: Defective Notices Do Not Trigger Limitation

MIG

January 17, 2024: Election Not Required, LAT Act Invoked & Limits Exhausted?

Award, Limitation Period

January 15, 2024: Chronic Pain Diagnosis Contradicted by Self-Reports

MIG

January 10, 2024: NEB Reinstated After Six Years Generates Award

Award, NEB

January 8, 2024: Undisputed Psychological Diagnosis Prevails

MIG

January 3, 2024: Significant & Competing Price of Non-Compliance for Both Parties

Non-Compliance

December 20, 2023 (Throwback Edition): Statutory Relief Within Tribunal’s Jurisdiction

Jurisdiction

December 18, 2023: ‘Incident’ of Viewing Video Not Use and Operation

MIG

December 13, 2023 (Throwback Edition): Employed Applicant Remains Entitled to Post 104 IRB

IRB

December 11, 2023: Chronic Pain Diagnosis In Absence of Physical Exam?

MIG

December 6, 2023: Four Marked Impairments for 2010 MVA

CAT

December 4, 2023: No Adverse Inference Drawn Despite Lack of pre MVA CNRs

MIG

November 29, 2023 (THROWBACK EDITION): 18 Month Delayed Notice Reasonable, However 7 Month Delay is Not

Limitation Period

November 27, 2023: Confirmed High Bar to Escape MIG on Pre-Existing

MIG

November 22, 2023: Multiple IEs Excluded From Evidence

IE, Evidence

November 20, 2023: Radiculopathy Complaint Requires a Diagnosis

MIG

November 15, 2023: Court Applies Tomec & CAT Decision Varied

CAT, Limitation Period

November 13, 2023: Insurer Expert Conclusion Inconsistent with Findings

MIG

November 8, 2023: Maximum Award in Excess of $60K on CAT Case

CAT

November 6, 2023: Medical Evidence Overrides Legal Referrals

MIG

November 1, 2023: Eighteen Month Delayed Notice Reasonable However Seven Month Delay is Not

Limitation Period

October 30, 2023: Which MVA Exacerbated Injuries?

MIG

October 25, 2023: Application Seeking CAT Determination an Abuse of Process

CAT

October 23, 2023: Functional Disability Despite 50 Hour Work Week

MIG

October 18, 2023: Statutory Relief Renders Equitable Remedy Moot

Div Court

October 16, 2023: Injuries Not Static - MIG Determined Again

MIG

October 11, 2023: CERB is Income However Not “Gross Employment Income”

IRB

October 4, 2023: Employed Applicant Remains Entitled to Post 104 IRB

IRB

October 2, 2023: ‘IE’ Does Not Establish Causation

MIG

September 27, 2023: Post June 1 CAT Criterion 8 Satisfied

CAT

September 25, 2023: Chronic Pain Distinct from Recurring Pain

MIG

September 20, 2023: Expert Opinion Not Required for IRB Entitlement

IRB

September 18, 2023: Inconsistency Argument Not Accepted

MIG

September 13, 2023: IRB Payment Delayed Four Years – 20% Award

Award, IRB

September 11, 2023: MIG Determined Absent Applicants Written Submissions

MIG

August 30, 2023: Pain Determinative in Successful Post June 1 CAT Case

CAT

August 28, 2023: Knee Injury from MVA Caused Slip and Fall & ACL Tear?

MIG

August 23, 2023: WSIB Placement Qualifies for IRB

IRB

August 21, 2023: Absence of Applicant’s Medicals A Difference Maker

MIG

Contact Sales

416.364.6688

Contact Support

Contact Us

InHealth

11 Allstate Parkway Suite 203
Markham, Ontario
L3R 9T8

Follow Us On