Reconsideration Granted to Exclude References to “Entitlement”, “Up to Age 65” and “Post Age 65” in Relation to IRB
The recent Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) reconsideration decision, Schuknecht v Economical Insurance Company (19-013098/AABS), was granted as the Tribunal erred in awarding an income replacement benefit (IRB) up to age 65 and beyond.
The previous decision concluded the applicant was entitled to an IRB from October 2, 2014 to date and ongoing, a repayment in the amount of $4,872.90 and IRBs of $122.00 per week after the applicant reaches age 65.
The respondent is seeking a reconsideration of the decision to remove any reference to “entitlement”, “up to age 65” and “post age 65” in relation to IRB.
In its request for reconsideration, the respondent argues that the Tribunal made an error of fact and law with respect to entitlement to IRB and in awarding an IRB post age 65. Specifically, the respondent states that IRB entitlement was never an issue in dispute before the Tribunal, and it never made any submissions regarding entitlement to IRB.
The respondent further submits that the Tribunal acted outside of its jurisdiction to adjudicate IRB entitlement and quantum at or beyond age 65 as these issues were not before the Tribunal. The respondent submits it has not yet made a determination of these benefits as mandated by Section 8(1) of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule (SABS) as the applicant has not yet reached the threshold.
The applicant argues that any application of Section 8(1) regarding the calculation of post-65 IRB would speculate about the future – the respondent would live to age 65 (she is currently 57), she would be entitled to IRBs at age 65 and the law would not change in the next 8 years.
The respondent further submits that the Tribunal erred in both fact and law as the respondent never argued that post-65 IRB is calculated by determining the quantum immediately before the applicant’s 65th birthday. The respondent states that this error inhibits the public policy objectives underlying the SABS and the insurer’s obligation to adjust the claim on an ongoing basis.
Mr. Maedel, Vice Chair of the Tribunal, agreed with the respondent that he made an error with respect to entitlement to IRB and quantum post-65 as these were not issues in dispute. Specifically, Mr. Maedel agreed that he exceeded the Tribunal’s jurisdiction and violated the rules of natural justice or procedural fairness when he ordered entitlement to IRB to age 65 and after age 65.
As such, Mr. Maedel granted the respondent’s request for reconsideration and indicated the previous decision will be varied and amended to exclude references to entitlement, IRBs up to age 65 and IRBs post-65.
Read the decision in full detail here: Schuknecht v Economical Insurance Company (19-013098/AABS)
Work With Us
Our Advisors are ready to have
a personalized discussion with you.