Wiles v. Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada
Even accepting the application judge erred on the limitation point, that error did not taint the independent relief from forfeiture analysis; the application judge correctly applied the legal principles and his discretionary findings are entitled to deference, so the appeal fails.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 2018 ONCA 766
- Parties
- Appellant: Teresa Wiles; Respondent: Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada; Respondent: Spaenaur Inc.
- Court
- Court of Appeal for Ontario
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 19 September 2018
- Procedural Posture
- Civil / Appeal From Superior Court of Justice
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Limitation Period, Relief From Forfeiture, Administrative Deference, Late Filing of LTD Claim, Costs
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Teresa Wiles
Appellant
Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada
Respondent
Spaenaur Inc.
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil / Appeal From Superior Court of Justice
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the action was barred by a limitation period
- 2 Whether the application judge erred in the relief from forfeiture analysis regarding late filing of an LTD claim
- 3 Whether the application judge erred in the exercise of discretion
Ratio Decidendi
Even accepting the application judge erred on the limitation point, that error did not taint the independent relief from forfeiture analysis; the application judge correctly applied the legal principles and his discretionary findings are entitled to deference, so the appeal fails.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed
Orders
- Appeal dismissed
- Costs to the respondent fixed at $5,000 inclusive of HST and applicable taxes
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
Wiles v. Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada Collection Decisions of the Court of Appeal Date 2018-09-19 Neutral citation 2018 ONCA 766 Docket numbers C65114 Judges Rouleau, Paul S.; Benotto, Mary Lou; Miller, Bradley Subject Civil Decision Content COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO CITATION: Wiles v. Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada, 2018 ONCA 766 DATE: 20180919 DOCKET: C65114 Rouleau, Benotto and Miller JJ.A. BETWEEN Teresa Wiles Plaintiff (Appellant) and Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada and Spaenaur Inc. Defendants (Respondents) Brian A. Pickard and William C. Cline, for the appellant Stephen H. Shantz, for the respondents Heard and released orally: September 13, 2018 On appeal from the judgment of Justice Gerald E. Taylor of the Superior Court of Justice dated February 15, 2018, with reasons reported at 2018 ONSC1090. REASONS FOR DECISION [1] The appellant argues that the application judge erred in finding that the action was barred by a limitation period. In her submissions, the appellant maintains that this was an error and it infected the relief from forfeiture analysis regarding her late filing with the insurer of her LTD claim. [2] We disagree. Although the respondent concedes that the application judge erred in his finding that the action was barred by a limitation period, the respondent maintains that the analysis of the relief for forfeiture issue which followed stands independent and separate from the limitation disposition. [3] From our reading of the reasons, the application judge’s analysis discloses no such tainting. We also disagree with the appellant’s suggestion that the application judge erred in the exercise of his discretion in determining whether relief should be granted. The application judge correctly identified the legal principles that apply and his findings on the record that he had before him were available and are owed deference in this court. [4] For these reasons, the appeal is dismissed. Costs to the respondent are fixed in the amount of $5,000 inclusive of HST and applicable taxes. “Paul Rouleau J.A.” “M.L. Benotto J.A.” “B.W. Miller J.A.”