Martin Korsch found errors in the written explanation of his automobile income replacement benefits. That did not, however, mean the final calculations were wrong. The difference drove the result in Korsch v Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation, 2026 MBCA 17.
He sought leave to appeal a decision of the Automobile Injury Compensation Appeal Commission about the indexing of his 2022 income replacement indemnity. The Court of Appeal of Manitoba denied leave. It made no order for costs.
The dispute reached back to two collisions. One in 1999 gave rise to income replacement for self employment losses. A second in 2004 concerned employment income. MPI indexed both benefit entitlements annually under the governing legislation.
The internal review contained mistakes. Korsch challenged the explanation and calculation of the income replacement benefits he received.The internal reviewer made errors about the relevant sources of income and employment classification. The appeals commission identified those errors and considered a specialist calculation instead.The appeals commission accepted the accounting specialist's calculations for both auto benefit claims. It determined that the income replacement amounts had been indexed correctly, despite the internal review's mistakes.Under section 187 of the Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation Act, leave to appeal is confined to important questions of law or jurisdiction. An arguable case with a reasonable prospect of success is needed.Korsch sought further review after receiving the internal decision. He raised several concerns unrelated to the calculation for 2022. The appellate court found no sufficient legal ground to permit the appeal.The judge acknowledged that review errors could create understandable confusion and mistrust. But the mistakes did not demonstrate that the Commission had applied the law incorrectly when accepting the corrected amounts.The distinction matters for claims administration. An insurer's explanation may contain errors even when the payable benefit is correctly calculated. Accurate reasons are important to maintain trust and avoid needless disputes.An appellate leave application is not an opportunity to rehear all earlier complaints. It requires a legal or jurisdictional question that meets the statutory test. Here that threshold was not met. Leave was denied with no order for costs.