Halter v. Standard Life Assurance Co. of Canada,

• Judge: Rooke
• Neutral Citation: 2013 ABQB 99
• Citation: 2013 ABQB 99,(2013), 557 A.R. 353 (QB),557 AR 353,(2013), 557 AR 353 (QB),557 A.R. 353
• Date: 04 June 2012
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)

Halter v. Standard Life (2013), 557 A.R. 353 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2013] A.R. TBEd. MR.039

Robert Halter (plaintiff) v. Standard Life Assurance Company of Canada (defendant)

(0603 03492; 2013 ABQB 99)

Indexed As: Halter v. Standard Life Assurance Co. of Canada

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial District of Edmonton

Rooke, A.C.J.Q.B.

February 12, 2013.

Summary:

On October 4, 2001, the defendant insurer advised the plaintiff that his long term disability benefits would terminate on December 1, 2001, as they did. The plaintiff provided further information to the insurer in September and November 2002, January 2003 and May 2004, but the plaintiff's appeal was never allowed. In March 2006, the plaintiff sued the insurer. At issue was whether the claim was statute-barred by the limitation provisions under the Insurance Act or the Limitations Act.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that the claim was statute-barred.

Insurance - Topic 1871

The insurance contract - Interpretation of contract - Limitation period - On October 4, 2001, the defendant insurer advised the plaintiff that his long term disability benefits would terminate on December 1, 2001, as they did - The plaintiff provided further information to the insurer in September and November 2002, January 2003 and May 2004, but the plaintiff's appeal was never allowed - In March 2006, the plaintiff sued the insurer - At issue was whether the claim was statute-barred by the limitation provisions under the Insurance Act (IA) or the Limitations Act (LA) - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, having held that the claim was statute-barred, rejected the plaintiff's assertion that because the claim for disability benefits led to benefits that were payable periodically, a rolling limitation period could arise at the end of each payment period - While the payments were made periodically, this did not, of itself, result in a "rolling limitation" and certainly not after November 30, 2001, when the last periodic payment was made - After that, ongoing payments were consistently denied - Further, the insurance contract was clear that the covered event arose when the plaintiff became disabled and ended when he ceased to be disabled - This was a singular event - Even if there had been a rolling limitation, that ended when there was no longer proof of a disability - Finally, nothing in the wording of s. 590 of the IA or s. 3(1) of the LA could be interpreted as creating a rolling limitation - See paragraphs 20 to 32.

Insurance - Topic 3355

Payment of insurance proceeds - Limitation of actions - General - [See Insurance - Topic 1871 ].

Insurance - Topic 3357

Payment of insurance proceeds - Limitation of actions - When limitation period commences - On October 4, 2001, the defendant insurer advised the plaintiff that his long term disability benefits would terminate on December 1, 2001, as they did - The plaintiff provided further information to the insurer in September and November 2002, January 2003 and May 2004, but the plaintiff's appeal was never allowed - In March 2006, the plaintiff sued the insurer - At issue was whether the claim was statute-barred by the limitation provisions under the Insurance Act (IA) or the Limitations Act (LA) - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that the claim was statute-barred - The one-year limitation period in s. 590 of the IA ran from October 4, 2001, the date on which there was "clear and unequivocal communication" denying the plaintiff's further entitlement to benefits - Although it was redundant, s. 3 of the LA also applied with a two-year limitation period - Further, the plaintiff had obtained legal advice by which he knew, or should have known, that there was a clear termination subject only to an appeal and that all he was pursuing during that period was an appeal - The discoverability provisions of s. 3(1) of the LA were impacted by that same finding - See paragraphs 12 to 19.

Limitation of Actions - Topic 15

General principles - Discoverability rule - Application of - [See Insurance - Topic 3357 ].

Limitation of Actions - Topic 17

General principles - Continuing acts and continuing losses - [See Insurance - Topic 1871 ].

Limitation of Actions - Topic 2321

Actions in contract - Insurance contracts - General - [See Insurance - Topic 1871 ].

Limitation of Actions - Topic 2324

Actions in contract - Insurance contracts - When time begins to run - [See Insurance - Topic 3357 ].

Limitation of Actions - Topic 9305

Postponement or suspension of statute - General - Discoverability rule - [See Insurance - Topic 3357 ].

Cases Noticed:

Falk v. Manufacturers Life Insurance Co., [2008] B.C.T.C. Uned. A48; 2008 BCSC 173, refd to. [para. 14].

Esau v. Co-operators Life Insurance Co., [2004] B.C.T.C. 1347; 2004 BCSC 1347, affd. (2006), 229 B.C.A.C. 1; 379 W.A.C. 1; 2006 BCCA 249, refd to. [para. 15].

Pekarek v. Manufacturers Life Insurance Co. (2006), 227 B.C.A.C. 75; 374 W.A.C. 75; 55 B.C.L.R.(4th) 1; 2006 BCCA 250, refd to. [para. 15].

Gumpp v. Co-operators Life Insurance Co. (2004), 200 B.C.A.C. 38; 327 W.A.C. 38; 27 B.C.L.R.(4th) 1; 2004 BCCA 217, refd to. [para. 16].

Bowes v. Edmonton (City) et al. (2003), 333 A.R. 332; 2003 ABQB 492, refd to. [para. 19].

Bowes v. Edmonton (City) et al. (2005), 386 A.R. 1; 2005 ABQB 502, refd to. [para. 19].

Jones Estate v. Cumis Life Insurance Co. (2003), 171 Man.R.(2d) 123; 2003 MBQB 5, refd to. [para. 19].

Ravndahl v. Saskatchewan et al., [2009] 1 S.C.R. 181; 383 N.R. 247; 320 Sask.R. 305; 444 W.A.C. 305; 2009 SCC 7, refd to. [para. 22].

Wilson's Truck Lines Ltd. v. Pilot Insurance Co. (1996), 94 O.A.C. 321; 1996 CanLII 1012 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 23].

Goorbarry v. Bank of Nova Scotia (2011), 286 O.A.C. 282 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 24].

Cathcart v. Sun Life of Canada, [2002] A.R. Uned. 553 (Q.B.), dist. [para. 25].

Sander v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada (2003), 177 B.C.A.C. 208; 291 W.A.C. 208 (C.A.), dist. [para. 26].

Balzer v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada (2003), 183 B.C.A.C. 115; 301 W.A.C. 115; 2003 BCCA 306, refd to. [para. 28].

Holme Estate v. Unum Life Insurance Co. of America (2000), 145 B.C.A.C. 232; 237 W.A.C. 232; 2000 BCCA 627, refd to. [para. 28].

White v. Manufacturers Life Insurance Co., [2011] B.C.T.C. Uned. 1615; 2011 BCSC 1615, refd to. [para. 33].

Statutes Noticed:

Insurance Act, R.S.A. 2000, c. I-3, sect. 590 [para. 29].

Limitations Act, R.S.A. 2000, c. L-12, sect. 3(1) [para. 31].

Counsel:

Robert A. Joly, for the plaintiff;

Lorena K. Harris, for the defendant.

This application was heard on June 4, 2012, by Rooke, A.C.J.Q.B., of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial District of Edmonton, who delivered the following memorandum of decision on February 12, 2013.