Claimant says he didn’t follow up as he trusted lawyers to handle the file
The Ontario Licence Appeal Tribunal has found that the limited evidence regarding the involvement of the injured party’s former counsel for around a year did not provide a persuasive explanation for his delay in applying for accident benefits.
Singh v Unifund Assurance Company, 2026 CanLII 62986 (ON LAT), revolved around the applicant’s motor vehicle accident on Sept. 4, 2022.
On Aug. 15, 2024, around 22 months after the deadline, the applicant submitted an application for benefits (OCF-1) under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule, effective Sept. 1, 2010 (including amendments effective June 1, 2016).
The respondent insurance company denied the benefits sought by the applicant, who was previously involved in a Nov. 9, 2021, accident involving the same insurer.
Before the Licence Appeal Tribunal, Automobile Accident Benefits Service, the applicant applied for a resolution of the dispute over whether his failure to submit the OCF-1 for the 2022 accident within the time limit in s. 32(5) of the Schedule barred him from proceeding with his claim for benefits.
The applicant testified that, from September 2022 until about September 2023, the same counsel represented him in connection with his 2021 and 2022 accidents, at which point he ended the retainer.
The applicant admitted that he did not contact his lawyers regarding his 2022 claim during the retainer period because he trusted them to handle the file.
The Ontario Licence Appeal Tribunal decided that the applicant was statute-barred under s. 55(1)1 of the Schedule from proceeding with his application for benefits due to his failure to submit his OCF-1 within the time required by the Schedule.
Considering the totality of evidence, the tribunal ruled that the applicant failed to give a reasonable explanation for his 22-month delay in submitting the OCF-1.
First, the tribunal held that counsel’s involvement did not explain the approximate 11-month gap and the applicant’s failure to attempt to advance his 2022 claim in the period between the retainer’s end and the OCF-1 submission.
The tribunal determined that the applicant’s failure to follow up with his lawyers during the retainer period weakened his explanation.
The tribunal noted that the applicant did not file a complaint before the Law Society of Ontario or a claim with the Lawyers’ Professional Indemnity Company against his then-counsel.
According to the tribunal, even though the applicant’s 2022 claim was dormant until August 2024, he personally negotiated and settled his 2021 claim with the same insurer during the post-retainer period and showed familiarity with the accident benefits process.
The tribunal rejected the applicant’s argument that confusion between the two files led to the delay, an explanation that he himself accepted did not “go very far.”
Next, the tribunal refused to grant relief for the impacts of the applicant’s failure to meet the relevant deadline upon considering circumstances such as the hardship to the applicant, the substantial investigative prejudice to the insurer, and the significant delay.
Given the 22-month delay, the tribunal explained that the insurer could not:
