Sietzema v. Economical Mutual Insurance Co., 2014 ONCA 111
| Judge | Juriansz, Pepall and Strathy, JJ.A. |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Ontario) |
| Case Date | January 28, 2014 |
| Jurisdiction | Ontario |
| Citations | 2014 ONCA 111;(2014), 315 O.A.C. 392 (CA) |
Sietzema v. Economical Mutual (2014), 315 O.A.C. 392 (CA)
MLB headnote and full text
Temp. Cite: [2014] O.A.C. TBEd. FE.018
Tanya Sietzema (plaintiff/appellant) v. Economical Mutual Insurance Company (defendant/respondent)
(C57368; 2014 ONCA 111)
Indexed As: Sietzema v. Economical Mutual Insurance Co.
Ontario Court of Appeal
Juriansz, Pepall and Strathy, JJ.A.
February 11, 2014.
Summary:
The plaintiff was injured in a car accident in November 2005. She was employed at the time. She applied for benefits under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule (SABS). In December 2005, the insurer notified the plaintiff that she was eligible for income replacement benefits until March 2, 2006. The form stated that she was not eligible for non-earner benefits because she had been employed when the accident occurred. This was an error. Under the SABS, the plaintiff was not eligible for non-earner benefits because she was receiving income replacement benefits, not because she was employed. The form also stated that the plaintiff had two years from the insurer's refusal to pay a benefit to commence arbitration or a lawsuit. The plaintiff did not commence her action seeking non-earner benefits until April 2011. The insurer moved for summary judgment to dismiss the action as time-barred.
The Ontario Superior Court, in a decision reported at [2013] O.T.C. Uned. 4299, granted the motion. The plaintiff appealed.
The Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.
Insurance - Topic 5076
Automobile insurance - Compulsory government schemes - Bodily injury and death benefits - Limitation period - The plaintiff was injured in a car accident in November 2005 - She was employed at the time - She applied for benefits under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule (SABS) - In December 2005, the insurer notified the plaintiff that she was eligible for income replacement benefits until March 2, 2006 - The form stated that she was not eligible for non-earner benefits because she had been employed when the accident occurred - This was an error - Under the SABS, the plaintiff was not eligible for non-earner benefits because she was receiving income replacement benefits, not because she was employed - The form also stated that the plaintiff had two years from the insurer's refusal to pay a benefit to commence arbitration or a lawsuit - The plaintiff did not commence her action seeking non-earner benefits until April 2011 - She asserted that she had been misled as to her entitlement - A motion judge granted the insurer summary judgment to dismiss the action as time-barred - The Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed the plaintiff's appeal - The plaintiff's real complaint was that she was given an incorrect reason for her ineligibility - However, the form clearly stated that the insurer had found that the plaintiff was not eligible for non-earner benefits - The limitation period began to run then, when the plaintiff's claim for non-earner benefits was refused - The form gave her clear notice of that - Nothing required the insurer to give her a further notice that she might have a right to renew a claim for a benefit that had been denied.
Insurance - Topic 5077
Automobile insurance - Compulsory government schemes - Bodily injury and death benefits - Notice of refusal or termination of income benefits - [See Insurance - Topic 5076 ].
Cases Noticed:
Galdamez v. Allstate Insurance Co. of Canada (2012), 294 O.A.C. 133; 111 O.R.(3d) 321; 2012 ONCA 508, refd to. [para. 5].
Smith v. Co-operators General Insurance Co., [2002] 2 S.C.R. 129; 286 N.R. 178; 158 O.A.C. 1; 2002 SCC 30, refd to. [para. 11].
Turner v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. et al. (2005), 195 O.A.C. 61 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 13].
Katanic v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 2013 ONSC 5103, refd to. [para. 13].
Sagan v. Dominion of Canada General Insurance Co., 2013 ONSC 7886, refd to. [para. 13].
Haldenby v. Dominion of Canada General Insurance Co. (2001), 149 O.A.C. 172; 55 O.R.(3d) 470 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 15].
Counsel:
Jane Poproski, for the appellant;
Lisa Armstrong and Shalini Thomas, for the respondent.
This appeal was heard on January 28, 2014, by Juriansz, Pepall and Strathy, JJ.A., of the Ontario Court of Appeal. On February 11, 2014, the court released the following endorsement.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Spina v. Shoppers Drug Mart Inc.,
...Insurance Co., 2016 ONCA 34; Richards v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada, 2016 ONSC 5492; Sietzema v. Economical Mutual Insurance Co., 2014 ONCA 111; Balzer v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada (c.o.b. Sun Life of Canada), 2003 BCCA [82] Pickering Square Inc. v. Trillium College Inc., 2016 ......
-
Court Of Appeal Summaries (February 6, 2023 ' February 10, 2023)
...Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. I.8, Smith v. Co-operators General Insurance Co., 2002 SCC 30, Sietzema v. Economical Mutual Insurance Company, 2014 ONCA 111, Rizzo & Rizzo Shoes Ltd. (Re), [1998] 1 S.C.R. 27, Beaudin v. Travelers Insurance Company of Canada, 2022 ONCA 806, R. v. Yadegari, 2011 ONCA 2......
-
This Week At The SCC (21/11/2014)
...and legitimate expectations). Leave was likewise refused from the Ontario ruling, Sietzema v. Economical Mutual Insurance Company, 2014 ONCA 111, which had dismissed as statute-barred an insured's claim for benefits (despite an intervening change in the law). Leave was refused from a second......
-
Oliver v. Brant Mutual Insurance Company, 2018 ONSC 3716
...the two year limitation period. The adjudicator followed the decision of the Court of Appeal in Sietzema v. Economical Insurance Company, 2014 ONCA 111, in which the court re-asserted the proposition from Turner v State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 2005 OJ No. 351 (ON CA) that as l......
-
Spina v. Shoppers Drug Mart Inc.,
...Insurance Co., 2016 ONCA 34; Richards v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada, 2016 ONSC 5492; Sietzema v. Economical Mutual Insurance Co., 2014 ONCA 111; Balzer v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada (c.o.b. Sun Life of Canada), 2003 BCCA [82] Pickering Square Inc. v. Trillium College Inc., 2016 ......
-
Oliver v. Brant Mutual Insurance Company, 2018 ONSC 3716
...the two year limitation period. The adjudicator followed the decision of the Court of Appeal in Sietzema v. Economical Insurance Company, 2014 ONCA 111, in which the court re-asserted the proposition from Turner v State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 2005 OJ No. 351 (ON CA) that as l......
-
Bustamante v. Guarantee Co. of North America, 2015 ONCA 530
...[17] This argument cannot succeed in the light of this court's decisions in Sietzema v. Economical Mutual Insurance Company , 2014 ONCA 111, 118 O.R. (3d) 713, and Sagan v. Dominion of Canada General Insurance Co. , 2014 ONCA 720, 123 O.R. (3d) 314. [18] The facts in Sietzema are on al......
-
Tomec v. Economical Mutual Insurance Company, 2018 ONSC 5664
...She stated that this conclusion was consistent with the decision of the Court of Appeal in Sietzema v. Economical Mutual Insurance Co., 2014 ONCA 111, 118 O.R. (3d) 713. In that case, the court held that even if the reasons given by an insurer are legally incorrect, the two-year limitation ......
-
Court Of Appeal Summaries (February 6, 2023 ' February 10, 2023)
...Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. I.8, Smith v. Co-operators General Insurance Co., 2002 SCC 30, Sietzema v. Economical Mutual Insurance Company, 2014 ONCA 111, Rizzo & Rizzo Shoes Ltd. (Re), [1998] 1 S.C.R. 27, Beaudin v. Travelers Insurance Company of Canada, 2022 ONCA 806, R. v. Yadegari, 2011 ONCA 2......
-
This Week At The SCC (21/11/2014)
...and legitimate expectations). Leave was likewise refused from the Ontario ruling, Sietzema v. Economical Mutual Insurance Company, 2014 ONCA 111, which had dismissed as statute-barred an insured's claim for benefits (despite an intervening change in the law). Leave was refused from a second......
-
The SABS Limitation Period Is A Hard Limit
...Estate, 2017 ONCA 455, Haldenby v. Dominion, 55 O.R. (3d) 470, Turner v. State Farm, (2005) 195 OAC 61 and Sietzema v. Economical, 2014 ONCA 111, the Divisional Court as found by the Tribunal, the insurer had clearly and unequivocally refused to pay those expenses as of September 12, 2010. ......
-
Court Of Appeal Summaries (October 17 21, 2016)
...e.g. Bonaccorso v. Optimum Insurance Company Inc., 2016 ONCA 34, 129 O.R. (3d) 544 and Sietzema v. Economical Mutual Insurance Company, 2014 ONCA 111, 118 O.R. (3d) 713. Based on the date of the refusal, the appellant's action was several years too late. Palkowski v. Ivancic, 2016 ONCA 762 ......