Sparks v. Primmum Insurance Company
This page is a summary and commentary on a publicly available court decision, written for general informational and educational purposes only. It is not legal advice and does not create a lawyer-client relationship with Azimi Law, regardless of how specific or applicable it may seem to your situation.
This summary may be incomplete, simplified, or not reflect the most current state of the law — the decision may be appealed, distinguished, or overtaken by later rulings. Independently verify this case against the official decision before relying on it. Nothing here guarantees the outcome of any other matter, including yours.
Do not rely on this page to make decisions about your own situation. Consult a licensed lawyer, or contact Azimi Law to discuss your situation directly.
The Facts
Ms. Sparks was hurt in a collision on February 6, 2020. In February 2022 she put forward a treatment plan of $17,967, and on February 15, 2022 her insurer, Primmum, approved $14,577 and refused the other $3,390, enclosing the standard form explaining how to dispute the decision. She applied to the Licence Appeal Tribunal in April 2023, withdrew that application on May 1, 2024 without any step that paused the limitation clock, and filed again on July 30, 2024. The insurer argued that the new application came more than two years after the refusal. The Tribunal's adjudicator agreed, ruling in April 2025 that the insurer's notice satisfied s. 54 of the SABS and so started the two-year period in s. 56.
What the Court Decided
The Divisional Court dismissed both the appeal and the judicial review application, with no order as to costs. It read s. 54 as requiring the insurer to direct the claimant to a single avenue: a Tribunal application contesting a refused benefit. Reconsideration, appeals and judicial review are ways of challenging what the Tribunal later decides, not ways of disputing the insurer's refusal, so the notice did not have to explain them. The Court also rejected the argument that a clear two-year warning was misleading merely because it left out the possibility of a later discovery of the claim; adding that nuance, it reasoned, would have blurred the message. The Court accepted that the adjudicator had leaned on an authority about a different situation, the cancellation of benefits, and that this was an error, but the notice still met the statutory requirement, so the Tribunal's result stood.
Does This Affect You?
- ✓Your accident-benefits insurer approved only part of a treatment plan, or refused something outright, and you have not yet applied to the Licence Appeal Tribunal.
- ✓You filed a Tribunal application and later withdrew it, and you are unsure whether the time limit kept running in the meantime.
- ✓You are relying on the idea that an insurer's refusal letter was incomplete to save a dispute filed after two years.
Key Takeaways
- For a refused or partly refused benefit, the two-year period under the SABS runs from the insurer's refusal notice, and this decision confirms that a notice limited to the Tribunal route can be enough to start it.
- Withdrawing a Tribunal application does not by itself pause the limitation period; the time spent on the withdrawn application may not count in the claimant's favour.
- An error by the Tribunal in the case law it relied on will not change the outcome if the result is still supportable on the correct reading of the statute.