Key Issue:

• The case focused on the application of the discoverability rule to the two-year limitation period for income replacement benefits (IRBs) under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule (SABS), as per the Insurance Act.

Key Points:

1. Factual Background:

   • Samuel Tagoe, involved in a car accident in 2016, initially returned to work but later stopped due to medical issues.
   • He applied for accident benefits (OCF-1) stating he could work and was denied IRBs in May 2016.
   • In 2019, after further medical issues, he applied again for IRBs but was denied based on the earlier 2016 decision, with TPIC citing a two-year limitations bar.

2. Legal History:

   • The Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) dismissed Tagoe’s application, holding the 2016 denial triggered the limitations period.
   • The Divisional Court overturned LAT’s decision, applying the discoverability rule, which delayed the limitations period until Tagoe’s eligibility became apparent in 2017.

3. Court of Appeal’s Analysis:

   • Affirmed that the discoverability rule applies to IRBs, referencing Tomec v. Economical Insurance (2019 ONCA).
   • Found TPIC’s pre-emptive denial in 2016 could not trigger the limitations period because Tagoe was not eligible for IRBs at the time.
   • Rejected TPIC’s argument that Tagoe implicitly applied for IRBs in 2016 via submitted forms.
   • Held that the Divisional Court was correct to infer facts from evidence in determining that Tagoe did not apply for IRBs in 2016.

4. Disposition:

   • Appeal dismissed.
   • Costs of $15,000 awarded to Tagoe.