He did not accept that the words “[ i]n offering to review
additional evidence, we are not waiving our right to rely on
any statutory or policy provision including any time limitations” found in all of the letters but one, constitute notice that
the limitation period was running. On the contrary, he found
that the letters did not articulate when an action was an
appropriate means of seeking a remedy. Instead, “all these
letters did was confirm that whatever limitation applied continued”: Pentilla v. Western Life Assurance Co.,  O.J. No.
6162, 2017 ONSC 6733, 286 A.C.W.S. (3d) 159 (S.C.J.), at
 The motion judge found that “either June 15, 2015, or
October 21, 2014” was the date on which a reasonable person in
Ms. Penttila’s shoes would have understood that a proceeding was
an appropriate means to seek a remedy. This is because the process
did not end until the letter of June 18, 2015 when the final decision
was rendered or October 21, 2014 when it may have been intended
that the final decision was rendered: Pentilla, at para. 40.
The Positions of the Parties on this Appeal
 Western takes the position that Ms. Penttila should have
known that an action would be [at para. 40] “an appropriate
means to seek a remedy” by March 7, 2013 as she was advised by
Western that she no longer met the definition of total disability
and would no longer be entitled to benefits after that date. She
received no further benefits after that date.
 Western claims that an insurer always maintains a statutory
obligation to consider any new information provided to it.
 Ms. Penttila takes the position that it was not appropriate
for her to file a claim as of March 7, 2013, as her appeal had not
yet been finally determined by Western because
(a) she was told she had a right to appeal provided she took cer-
tain steps which she did. It was therefore not clear that the
process had run its course;
(b) there was no denial of the appeal or any reason to believe
that the matter would not be amicably resolved;
(c) she was not represented by legal counsel;
(d) there was no clear reference to the fact that the limitation
period was running in the communications from the insurer.
The insurer said only that “the limit”, whatever it was, was
not being waived;