Court Dismisses Blue Cross Attempt to Block Long-Term Disability Claim
A former long-haul truck driver had his long-term disability benefits denied by Blue Cross Life Insurance Company of Canada. When Blue Cross then tried to have his entire case thrown out of court before it could reach a full hearing, James Ludwar stopped that from happening.
The court dismissed Blue Cross’s application and awarded costs to the plaintiff.
Czernewcan v. Blue Cross Life Insurance Company of Canada, 2025 SKKB 76
King’s Bench for Saskatchewan | Justice Elson | June 10, 2025
What Happened
The plaintiff had worked as a long-haul truck driver for two Saskatchewan-based trucking companies. In March 2016, his physician advised him that his health had worsened and recommended he stop working. He applied for disability benefits through the group insurance policy his employer held with Blue Cross, and his short-term claim was initially approved.
When he later sought long-term disability benefits, Blue Cross denied the claim. The plaintiff retained James Ludwar, and a lawsuit was filed.
Rather than address whether the plaintiff was actually disabled and entitled to benefits, Blue Cross took a different approach. It pointed to a release the plaintiff had signed as part of a completely separate workplace dispute and argued that this paperwork should prevent him from ever having his disability claim heard by a court.
Why it matters: The insurer’s strategy was not to challenge the medical evidence or argue the plaintiff could work. It was to find a procedural way to end the case before anyone looked at the merits of the disability claim itself.
The Separate Legal Matter
Before the disability claim, the plaintiff had filed human rights and labour code complaints against his former employers over workplace issues unrelated to his disability benefits. Those complaints were settled in March 2017, and as part of the settlement, the plaintiff signed a release.
Blue Cross was not a party to those complaints and was not involved in negotiating the settlement. But it argued that the release language was broad enough to cover it as a third party, and that the plaintiff’s disability claim should be struck from the record entirely. Blue Cross also argued the lawsuit itself should be thrown out as an abuse of the court’s process.
Why it matters: The release was signed to resolve a workplace dispute between the plaintiff and his employers. Blue Cross had nothing to do with that dispute, but tried to use the resulting paperwork to shut down a completely different claim for disability benefits.
Why the Court Disagreed
Justice Elson examined the release document paragraph by paragraph and found that the language was not nearly as clear as Blue Cross suggested. The word “benefits” was never defined in the release, so it could just as easily refer to employment perks like vacation pay as it could to disability insurance. The reference to “insurers” was too general to point specifically to a disability insurer like Blue Cross. And Blue Cross’s relationship to the employers was not a straightforward insured/insurer arrangement in the traditional sense.
For a case to be thrown out at this stage, the court has to be satisfied that it is “plain and obvious” there is no claim worth hearing. Because the release could reasonably be read more than one way, that bar was not met. The abuse of process argument failed for similar reasons: the uncertainty around the release made it impossible to say the lawsuit was a misuse of the court’s function.
The application was dismissed. The court ordered Blue Cross to pay the plaintiff’s costs within 60 days.
Why it matters: The release never specifically mentioned disability benefits or Blue Cross by name. Because the wording left room for more than one reasonable reading, the court would not allow Blue Cross to use it to end the plaintiff’s claim before it was fully heard.
What This Means If Your Claim Has Been Denied
Insurance companies do not always respond to a disability claim by arguing medical evidence. Often, they look for procedural ways to end a case before it reaches a full hearing. This case demonstrates the precision required to keep a claim alive when an insurer attempts to shut it down early on technical grounds.
Read the Full Court Decision
The complete 26-page decision is available below. It covers the court’s full analysis, including the interpretation of the release, the law of privity of contract, and the abuse of process doctrine.
If Your Claim Has Been Denied
The path forward depends on the specific facts of your case, including your policy terms and the insurer’s conduct. Ludwar Law represents clients with group disability claims across Alberta and Saskatchewan.
This case summary is provided for informational purposes only. Every disability claim is unique, and results depend on individual policy terms, medical evidence, and specific circumstances.