In a decision on a preliminary issue, dated November 18, 2016,
Arbitrator Schnapp held that a catastrophically impaired Applicant
missed the two year limitation period to dispute the Insurer's
refusal to pay housekeeping and attendant care benefits.
In Mayo v. Economical, the Applicant was
involved in a serious MVA on May 2, 2005. Following the accident,
the Applicant received various benefits under the SABS, including
housekeeping and attendant care benefits. Economical sent the
Applicant an OCF-9 near the two year mark advising that no further
housekeeping and attendant care benefits would be paid after the
104-week mark as per sections 18 and 22 of the SABS. The language
of these two sections was attached to the OCF-9. The Applicant did
not dispute the denial until more than eight years later, when
he also applied for a determination of catastrophic
impairment. Ultimately the Applicant was deemed to be
catastrophically impaired but Economical maintained that
