A Saskatchewan man who tried to appeal a decision on an SGI injury claim got caught in a legal dispute after he claimed his paperwork got lost in the mail. Maitlan Knoke was injured in a collision on Sept. 28, 2020, and made a claim with SGI shortly after, according to an Aug. 6 decision from the Court of Appeal for Saskatchewan. Knoke received a letter from SGI on March 4, 2023, which was dated Feb. 27, 2023. In it, SGI provided a decision, which gave Knocke the right to appeal. The letter stated that he would have to make his request on or before June 8 of that year. Knoke said he contacted SGI on March 9, 2023, and told a representative that he was going to appeal SGI’s decision. He said he sent a notice of appeal dated May 17, 2023, on June 1, 2023, to the Automobile Injury Appeal Commission by regular mail, the Court of Appeal outlined in its decision. “That notice of appeal, according to Mr. Knoke, somehow got lost in the mail,” the court’s decision read. “In any event, the Commission never received it.” Knoke sent a second copy of his notice of appeal to Commission, but that was after the June 8 deadline had already passed. The Commission said although it’s unusual for the document to be lost in the mail, it is possible, and accepted Knoke’s account that he had sent his notice of appeal within the appeal period. Despite that, SGI argued that the appeal process does not begin when the notice of appeal is dropped off in the mail, but rather when it is actually received by the Commission. Referring to the Automobile Accident Insurance Act (AAIA), SGI said in the absence of a requirement that a notice of appeal be received for the appeal to be considered as started, “the Commission or SGI would never be able to know what appeals are outstanding.” “Mr. Knoke, for his part, says that dropping a notice of appeal in the mail within the appeal period is all that is required,” the decision read. As such, the argument turned to different interpretations of the provisions in the AAIA. In its decision, the Court of Appeal wrote that its appreciates the fact that without a requirement that a notice of appeal be received by the Commission within the appeal period, there would be a potential for the appeal to begin without their knowledge if it is lost in the mail. The court also noted there would be times when it’s unknown whether an appeal began within the required timeframe, which is the issue of this particular case. Additionally, the court said this is the first time they have had to deal with this question, and dismissed SGI’s suggestion that this case would open the floodgates for other insurers to say their appeal was lost in the mail. The court ultimately ruled to dismiss SGI’s appeal, with Knoke’s injury claim appeal costs to be assessed “in the usual manner.” In its decision, the court said the question shouldn’t be whether the interpretation of the AAIA benefits SGI or Knoke more, but rather what the provincial legislature intended when they enacted the provisions. “In this case, the language of the legislation is clear. Nowhere in the words chosen by the Legislature is there any suggestion that receipt of a notice of appeal by the Commission is required to commence the appeal process,” the decision read. The court noted if the legislature had intended receipt of the notice of appeal to be a requirement, it could have amended the legislation. “Absent such an amendment, however, Mr. Knoke is entitled to the benefit of the words of the legislation, not the words SGI hoped to read into it,” the court’s decision read.
