Thursday March 28, 2019

Limitation Periods & LTD Claims

Authored by: David S.R. Parker Posted in: Personal Injury

A common question clients often have is in respect to their rights when denied a long term disability (LTD) claim (under private or employment-related insurance policies) is when must an action be commenced.  This has become very important given the 2015 changes in Limitation of Actions Act provisions which eliminated the ability of a court to provide relief if the claim is not advanced in time. The new Act allows a court to extend a limitation period, but only with respect to claims for personal injury damages.  That does not apply to LTD benefit claims and whatever the applicable limitation period, it is construed strictly and missing the deadline will in almost all cases be fatal to the claim.

The recent decision in Cameron v. Nova Scotia Association of Health Organizations Long Term Disability (NSAHO LTD) Plan, 2018 NSSC 90 (NSSC) provides important commentary to the operation of the Limitation of Actions Act as it applies to LTD claims.  In that case, the claimant (a Registered Nurse) applied for LTD benefits in September of 2015 but was denied benefits under the NSAHO LTD plan on May 4, 2016.  She did not file an appeal of the decision and did not commence legal action until November of 2017. The LTD Plan never advised the claimant of the one-year limitation period.  Article 11.06(1) of the plan provided that a one-year limitation period began to run “…from the date of the claim decision or subsequent claim review decision if applicable.”

The LTD plan applied and was successful in obtaining summary judgment dismissing the action on the basis that the contractual limitation period of one-year applied, notwithstanding the Limitation of Actions Act provided a two-year limitation period.  The Court considered whether the contractual 1-year limitation period or the 2-year Limitation of Actions Act period applied.  It was noted that Section 21 of the new Limitation of Actions Act (which became effective on September 1, 2015), provided as follows in respect to contractual limitation periods:

(1) The limitation period established by this Act may be extended, but not shortened, by agreement.

(2) Subsection (1) does not affect an agreement made before the coming into force of this Act.

The NSAHO LTD Plan was an agreement between the Organisation and various unions which was entered prior to the effective date of the Limitation of Actions Act (September 1, 2015).  The Court held that the shortened limitation period contained in the Plan agreement was permitted by Section 21, and that contractual 1-year period applied to bar her claim.

The Claimant also attempted to argue that because of her mental state, she was incapable of bringing a claim.  She attempted to rely on Section 19 of the Limitation of Actions Act which provides:

19(1) The limitation periods established by this Act do not run while a claimant is incapable of bringing a claim because of the claimant’s physical, mental or psychological condition

The Court found that this provision did not apply to a contractual limitation period – it only applied to limitation periods established under the act.  Even if section 19 did apply to a contractual limitation period, there was insufficient evidence provided by the claimant to establish she was “incapable.” The appropriate test was whether the claimant had the ability to understand the information that was contained in the May 4, 2016, letter and appreciate the reasonably foreseeable consequences of her making a decision, or not, in relation thereto? The evidence was clear that she understood the contents of the May letter, was taking care of all her affairs, had not been hospitalised and had only seen her family physician 4 times in the preceding year.  As such, she was capable of understanding the contents of the denial letter and of making a decision as to whether to appeal the denial.

In respect to the Plan never advising the claimant as to the applicable limitation period, the Court found that she was represented by a Union representative and had access to materials (such as the LTD Plan pamphlet) that indicated the applicable limitation period.

This decision (and others) provides the following guidance when advancing an LTD claim:



For more information on limitation periods and LTD Claims please contact one of our skilled accident and personal injury lawyers.

Share This Post:

Ask a question about this post.

Any Questions

Recent Blog Posts

Blog Post | Wednesday June 19, 2019

Bad Faith and Costs Consequences

Authored by: Terrance G. Sheppard Posted in: Family Law

Litigants are not rewarded for bad behaviour. In a recent decision out of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, a father was ordered to pay $420,000 in costs to his former spouse, after losing the case for custody of their young daughter.

Read full article
Blog Post | Thursday June 13, 2019

Canadian Official Marks: Qu’est-ce que c’est?

Authored by: Marc J. Belliveau Posted in: Intellectual Property

The Trademarks Act (the “Act”) contains a unique provision that allows “public authorities” to by-pass the normal trademark registration application process and to protect their “official marks” indefinitely. There is no similar provision in any other country’s trademark protection regime.

Read full article
Blog Post | Friday June 7, 2019

Accident & Personal Injury Law Team - request a free consultation

Posted in: Personal Injury

We are an experienced, passionate and dedicated team of accident & personal injury lawyers.

Read full article
Blog Post | Wednesday May 29, 2019

Family Law Resources: Wise Words from a Family Court Judge

Authored by: Mary H. Brown Posted in: Family Law

Although now 10 years old, Tug of War: A Judge’s Verdict on Separation, Custody Battles, and the Bitter Realities of Family Court, by Justice Harvey Brownstone of the Ontario Court of Justice, remains an insightful and powerful read on the uses and misuses of family court.

Read full article