A lost letter nearly cost an injured driver his appeal, until Saskatchewan's top court sided against Saskatchewan Government Insurance.
The dispute began with a motor vehicle accident on September 28, 2020. The claimant made a personal injury benefits claim with Saskatchewan Government Insurance (SGI), the province's public auto insurer. SGI issued a decision letter dated February 27, 2023, which the claimant received on March 4, 2023. Under the province's no-fault insurance legislation, he had 90 days from that decision to appeal, giving him until June 8, 2023.
The claimant told SGI on March 9, 2023 that he intended to appeal. He later said that on June 1, 2023 he mailed a notice of appeal, dated May 17, 2023, to the Automobile Injury Appeal Commission by regular mail. The Commission never received it. Once the claimant learned the notice had not arrived, he sent a second copy, but by then the June 8 deadline had passed.
The Commission accepted the claimant's account, finding that he had mailed the first notice on June 1 and inferring that it had been lost in the mail. The Commission noted that it is "unusual for a Notice of Appeal to be lost in the mail," but concluded it was possible in this case. SGI did not dispute that factual finding.
At issue before the Court of Appeal for Saskatchewan was whether an appeal under the Automobile Accident Insurance Act begins the moment a notice is mailed, or only once the Commission actually receives it. SGI argued receipt should be required, warning that otherwise neither the insurer nor the Commission could ever be certain which appeals were outstanding.
The court heard the appeal on January 21, 2026 and released its decision on August 6, 2026, rejecting SGI's argument. The relevant provisions of the Act use none of the words - such as filed, served, or received - that the legislature used elsewhere when it intended to require receipt. The court concluded that mailing a notice of appeal within the statutory period is enough to commence an appeal before the Commission. It noted that although the provision has existed for years, this was the first time it had been asked to resolve this precise question.
SGI's appeal was dismissed, with costs awarded to the claimant.
The court acknowledged that this reading could let an appeal exist without an insurer's knowledge, if a notice is genuinely lost in the mail. It rejected SGI's warning that this would open the floodgates to claims of lost notices, holding that a dispute over whether a notice was mailed on time is a factual question the Commission is equipped to answer, as it did here.
