Danielle Gauvreau

An appeal from an arbitration decision under the Insurance Act concerning priority of payment of statutory accident benefits.

The claimant, a 25-year-old who suffered severe traumatic brain injury in a motorcycle accident, was deemed catastrophically impaired.

The arbitrator determined that the claimant was principally dependent on his sister, who was insured by the appellant, rather than on his parents or the motorcycle insurer.

The appeal challenged the arbitrator's application of the dependency test, arguing that the arbitrator failed to properly apply all four criteria from the leading case and failed to conduct a precise calculation of the 51% threshold.

The court upheld the arbitrator's decision, finding no error of law or palpable and overriding error in the arbitrator's reasoning and factual conclusions.

This appeal arose from a priority dispute between insurance companies concerning accident benefits coverage following a motor vehicle accident.

The appellant, Trafalgar Insurance Company, appealed an arbitration decision that found the injured party was not insured by Economical Insurance Company and not entitled to Statutory Accident Benefits from them.

The Superior Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the arbitrator's findings that the vehicle in question was not an 'owned automobile' under Economical's standard Ontario Garage Policy (OAP 4) because its use (leased to a rental company) was outside the scope of the insured's business and was specifically excluded by the policy.

The court also affirmed that section 233(2) of the Insurance Act did not apply as the issue was the vehicle's insured status, not a breach of contract or misrepresentation.

The appellants, Trafalgar Insurance and Economical Insurance, appealed an arbitrator's decision in a priority dispute regarding statutory accident benefits.

The arbitrator had found that Arch Insurance was not the insurer of the vehicle involved in the accident because the vehicle was not owned or leased by Arch's named insured, despite being mistakenly listed on a fleet schedule.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error or error of law in the arbitrator's conclusion that the vehicle did not qualify as a 'described vehicle' under the OPCF 21A endorsement.

A related costs appeal was also dismissed as premature.