Appeal dismissed; occupiers' liability claim for parking lot slip and fall did not arise from vehicle use.
The respondent suffered injuries after slipping and falling on ice in a parking lot while reaching for his vehicle's door handle.
He received statutory accident benefits (SABs) after a LAT adjudicator found the incident was an 'accident' under the SABs Schedule.
He subsequently sued the parking lot owner and winter maintenance provider for occupiers' liability.
The appellants moved to determine whether any damages awarded must be reduced by the SABs received under s. 267.8 of the Insurance Act, and whether OHIP's subrogated claim was barred under s. 30(5) of the Health Insurance Act.
The motion judge found the tort claim did not arise directly or indirectly from the use or operation of an automobile, meaning the statutory deductions and subrogation bars did not apply.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the motion judge's substantive approach or her conclusion that the context and purpose of the LAT proceeding differed from the tort action, precluding abuse of process or issue estoppel.
OCACourt of AppealJun 16, 2026
