Christopher Dawson

The plaintiff brought three unopposed motions in writing regarding two proceedings arising from the same alleged slip and fall accident.

The first two motions sought to consolidate the two actions, as the plaintiff had initially sued an unknown property management company and later commenced a second action upon learning its identity.

The third motion sought leave to amend the statement of claim in the consolidated proceeding to reflect the correct parties.

The court granted the consolidation, finding the proceedings had common questions of fact and law, and granted leave to amend the pleadings to correct the misnomer and remove discontinued parties.

An insurer brought an application seeking a declaration that the respondent’s injuries did not arise from an “accident” within the meaning of s. 3(1) of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The respondent had tripped over a motorcycle that had been temporarily parked in a pedestrian walkway at a campsite and sustained serious spinal injuries.

Applying the two‑part purpose and causation test from Amos and subsequent Ontario Court of Appeal jurisprudence, the court held that the temporary parking of the motorcycle constituted the use or operation of an automobile.

The motorcycle’s placement in the walkway was found to be the dominant feature causing the injuries and created an unbroken chain of causation.

The court declared that the incident was an “accident” under the SABs.