A Saskatchewan court has refused to strike a no-fault benefits appeal against the province's public auto insurer, citing gaps in the filing-time evidence.
Saskatchewan Government Insurance administers no-fault benefits for drivers hurt in motor vehicle accidents under the province's Automobile Accident Insurance Act. After a claimant was injured in a crash and found eligible for no-fault coverage, the insurer terminated her benefits in a decision letter dated January 22, 2026.
The claimant appealed on April 28, 2026, filing a Statement of Claim in the Court of King's Bench in Regina and, the same day, a Notice of Appeal with the province's Automobile Injury Commission - the two forums claimants may choose between under the Act, which bars pursuing both at once.
SGI applied to strike the King's Bench claim, arguing the Commission appeal had been filed first and that the Act therefore stripped the court of jurisdiction. The insurer sought dismissal under rules covering pleadings that disclose no reasonable cause of action or are scandalous, frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process.
The Statement of Claim itself was not the problem: it named SGI, sought a ruling that the insurer erred in denying benefits, and set out the facts behind the claim - enough, Justice M.E. Tomka found, to disclose a reasonable cause of action.
SGI's case for striking the claim rested on the order of two filings made only minutes apart. The Commission logged the claimant's appeal as received at 12:18 p.m. on April 28; SGI pointed to a fax transmission header on the Statement of Claim reading 12:51 that same day as proof the court filing came later. Nothing in the evidence confirmed the header was accurate, or even whether it recorded a.m. or p.m., and the Local Registrar's office, the court noted, records only the date a claim is filed, not the time.
Other evidence complicated SGI's timeline: the claimant had always intended to pursue her appeal through the court, and she withdrew the Commission appeal on June 29, 2026, well before the strike application was heard. SGI, meanwhile, had taken no substantive steps in either proceeding beyond inquiries to the registrar and the Commission on June 12 and June 19, 2026. As Tomka put it, "there is simply no evidence of prejudice to SGI before me."
Because the King's Bench does not log exact filing times, the court held that appeals filed with both forums on the same day should be treated as filed simultaneously, with a further inquiry into whether the claimant made a clear, valid election of forum - weighing her intentions, the reasons both appeals were filed, how quickly one was withdrawn, and any actual prejudice to the insurer. Reading the statute narrowly enough to cut off a claimant's chosen forum in these circumstances, the court found, would undercut the law's purpose of ensuring SGI's benefit decisions get meaningful review.
The application to strike was dismissed, and SGI was ordered to pay the claimant costs of $2,000 within 30 days.
