Category:OCF-1: Difference between revisions
mNo edit summary |
mNo edit summary |
||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
==Canavan v. Unifund Assurance Company, 2021 CanLII 18912 (ON LAT)<ref name="Canavan"/>== | ==Canavan v. Unifund Assurance Company, 2021 CanLII 18912 (ON LAT)<ref name="Canavan"/>== | ||
1. The applicant. was involved in motor vehicle accident on January 27, 2014. The applicant states that as a result of this accident he sustained serious physical and psychological injuries. | |||
2. The applicant did not submit his application for accident benefits (OCF-1) to the respondent, Unifund, until more than 2 years had passed. The parties have differing views on the exact date of the submission of the OCF-1 however, both parties agree that it was more than 2 years following the accident. | |||
3. There is no dispute between the parties that the applicant submitted his OCF-1 outside of the prescribed timelines in section 32 of the Schedule[1]. <b><u>Instead, the preliminary issue before the Tribunal is whether he has a reasonable explanation for that delay that would permit him to proceed with his application for accident benefits.</b></u> | |||
8. The issues to be decided are: | |||
a) Is the applicant statue barred means of section 32(5) and 55(1) of the Schedule and if so has the applicant provided a reasonable explanation of delay pursuant to section 34 of the Schedule, such that he ought to be entitled to proceed with his claim for accident benefits? | |||
<ref name="Canavan">Canavan v. Unifund Assurance Company, 2021 CanLII 18912 (ON LAT), <https://canlii.ca/t/jdpxq>, retrieved on 2021-04-26</ref> | <ref name="Canavan">Canavan v. Unifund Assurance Company, 2021 CanLII 18912 (ON LAT), <https://canlii.ca/t/jdpxq>, retrieved on 2021-04-26</ref> | ||
Revision as of 19:42, 26 April 2021
1. The applicant. was involved in motor vehicle accident on January 27, 2014. The applicant states that as a result of this accident he sustained serious physical and psychological injuries.
2. The applicant did not submit his application for accident benefits (OCF-1) to the respondent, Unifund, until more than 2 years had passed. The parties have differing views on the exact date of the submission of the OCF-1 however, both parties agree that it was more than 2 years following the accident.
3. There is no dispute between the parties that the applicant submitted his OCF-1 outside of the prescribed timelines in section 32 of the Schedule[1]. Instead, the preliminary issue before the Tribunal is whether he has a reasonable explanation for that delay that would permit him to proceed with his application for accident benefits.
8. The issues to be decided are:
a) Is the applicant statue barred means of section 32(5) and 55(1) of the Schedule and if so has the applicant provided a reasonable explanation of delay pursuant to section 34 of the Schedule, such that he ought to be entitled to proceed with his claim for accident benefits?
Pages in category "OCF-1"
This category contains only the following page.
