request for review to our office within 60 days from the date of
 On April 8, 2013, Ms. Penttila advised that “I wish to
appeal this claim.”
 On November 13, 2013, Western wrote her to advise that,
“[u]pon receipt of all the above requested information, we will
complete our review of your appeal and advise you of the decision”.
 Ms. Penttila thereby accepted a clear offer to allow her to
appeal the denial of her claim for benefits. A process was established, and her appeal was determined by the insurer. She was
advised by letter dated October 21, 2014, of the decision that her
appeal had been rejected. (Ms. Penttila says she did not receive
written confirmation until June 15, 2015.)
 The right to appeal was not simply part of an insurer’s
general obligation to accept any material; it was a specific and
agreed right of appeal, a clear articulation of the process to be followed, and a specific decision in respect of the appeal.
 A reasonable person in Ms. Penttila’s position would have
pursued her right of appeal. Until that process ran its course, it
would be premature to commence legal proceedings against the
( ii) No need to review the tone and tenor of discussions
 The court was not required to assess the “tone and tenor”
of communications between the parties as there was a clear
beginning and end to the process. Western told Ms. Penttila that
she had a right to appeal and that a decision would be rendered,
and it was.
( iii) No litigation counsel engaged
 Ms. Penttila did not retain counsel while the appeal was
ongoing. This fact does not “[belie] any suggestion of a lack of
awareness of the appropriateness of commencing a lawsuit at
that point in time”: Pepper, at para. 1.
 The words “in offering to review additional evidence we
are not waiving our right to rely on any statutory or policy provisions including any time limitations”, in this factual context,
were not sufficiently clear to demonstrate to Ms. Penttila that the
insurer intended to rely on the fact that the limitation period was
running before the appeal had been decided.
( iv) Ms. Penttila’s evidence as to her belief
 On the contrary, Ms. Penttila’s uncontradicted sworn evidence was that she at all times believed that, from the time the
initial benefits were denied (in the letter dated February 19, 2013),