Daniel Strigberger

The applicant sought reconsideration of a decision denying his claim for statutory accident benefits.

The Tribunal had previously found that the applicant was not principally dependent on his aunt, through whose policy he claimed benefits, because he could not prove she provided more than 50% of his financial needs.

The applicant argued the Tribunal erred in its mathematical application of the dependency test and failed to consider his transitional circumstances.

The Tribunal dismissed the reconsideration request, finding no error of law or fact in its application of the dependency test or its assessment of the evidence regarding household expenses.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits from the respondent under his aunt's insurance policy, claiming he was her financial dependent.

The respondent initially paid benefits but later denied coverage on the basis that the applicant was not a dependent.

The Tribunal applied the Market Basket Measure and the test from Allstate, finding that the applicant's income exceeded the financial support provided by his aunt.

As the applicant was not principally dependent on his aunt for financial support, he was not an 'insured person' under the Schedule and his application for benefits was dismissed.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident while a passenger in a rideshare vehicle.

She sought statutory accident benefits under her mother's auto insurance policy, claiming she was a dependent.

The insurer denied the claim on the basis that she was not an 'insured person' under the Schedule.

The Tribunal applied the Market Basket Measure to assess financial dependency over the 12-month period preceding the accident, including the applicant's receipt of CERB payments.

The Tribunal found that the applicant met more than 50% of her own financial needs and was therefore not principally dependent on her mother for financial support.

The application for benefits was dismissed.

This appeal concerns the extraterritorial application of Ontario's loss transfer provisions under section 275 of the Insurance Act.

The applicant, Aviva Insurance Company of Canada, appealed an arbitrator's decision that it was bound to indemnify the respondent, Echelon Insurance, for statutory accident benefits paid to an Ontario resident involved in an accident in Alberta.

Aviva argued that the Ontario Court of Appeal's decision in Primmum Insurance Company v. Allstate Insurance Company, which supported the application of loss transfer in similar cross-jurisdictional scenarios, was effectively overturned by a later Court of Appeal decision in Travelers Insurance Company of Canada v. CAA Insurance Company.

The court dismissed the appeal, holding that Primmum remains binding precedent on the issue of loss transfer, as Travelers addressed priority disputes under a different section of the Act and explicitly left the correctness of Primmum open for another day.

The court affirmed that an insurer licensed and doing business in Ontario is subject to the loss transfer provisions, regardless of where the specific policy was issued or the accident occurred.

The plaintiff was injured while riding as a passenger on an ATV driven by Tyler Drenth and owned by Theodore Drenth.

The third-party insurer denied coverage on the basis that Tyler breached a statutory condition of the automobile policy by driving on a highway with a G1 licence after consuming alcohol.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment seeking a declaration that the full third-party limits were available to Theodore.

The court found that Theodore only consented to Tyler driving on a specific lane to access trails, and did not consent to him driving on the shoulder of the road where the accident occurred.

The court held that Theodore's breach of the statutory condition by permitting Tyler to drive on the lane did not taint the entire trip.

The court also found that, in the alternative, relief from forfeiture would be granted.

The plaintiff's motion for summary judgment was granted.

Michael Beaudin, severely injured in a dirt bike motocross competition, sought statutory accident benefits from Travelers Insurance.

Travelers denied coverage, arguing the dirt bike was not an "automobile" under the Insurance Act and Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule (SABS) because it was exempt from the Off-Road Vehicles Act (ORVA) insurance requirement.

The core issue on appeal was whether the ORVA exemption for closed course competitions applied only if the competition was sponsored by a motorcycle association.

The Court of Appeal affirmed the Divisional Court's decision, holding that the ORVA exemption applies only to sponsored competitions.

Consequently, the dirt bike was not exempt and was considered an "automobile" entitling Beaudin to benefits.

The appeal was dismissed.

The applicant was involved in a motor vehicle accident and failed to apply for statutory accident benefits within the prescribed timelines, waiting approximately 11 months.

The applicant argued the delay was reasonable because he thought his injuries would resolve, he did not know he could apply for benefits from his own insurer since he was driving his uncle's car, and the insurance agent was allegedly negligent.

The Tribunal applied the Horvath factors and found the applicant's explanations unreasonable, noting that ignorance of the law is not a reasonable explanation and there was no evidence the injuries prevented him from applying.

The application was dismissed as statute-barred under section 55(1)1 of the Schedule.

The appellant insurer appealed a License Appeal Tribunal reconsideration decision which found that the respondent's dirt bike was an 'automobile' under the Insurance Act, entitling him to statutory accident benefits.

The respondent was catastrophically injured in a motocross competition.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the LAT's interpretation that the dirt bike was not exempt from the Off-Road Vehicles Act because the closed course competition was not sponsored by a motorcycle association.

The court found no error of law in the LAT's application of the Ledcor onus test, the Adams test for automobiles, or its statutory interpretation.

On a statutory appeal from a License Appeal Tribunal reconsideration decision, the insurer challenged a ruling that an injured dirt bike rider was entitled to statutory accident benefits.

The court held there was no legal error in allocating onus to the insurer on the narrow exemption issue and no reversible error in applying the Adams framework.

Interpreting s. 2(1)5 of O. Reg. 863 purposively and contextually, the court agreed that motorcycle-association sponsorship applies to both closed course competitions and rallies, so the exemption did not apply on the record.

Although the reconsideration reasons improperly referenced a document outside the hearing record, the court found no procedural unfairness because that reference did not affect the ultimate analysis.

The appeal and the insurer’s fresh-evidence motion were dismissed, with costs to the respondent.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits, claiming she was injured when her vehicle was side-swiped.

The respondent denied the claim, arguing the injuries were sustained in a drive-by shooting where 24 bullets were fired into the applicant's vehicle.

The adjudicator found that the direct cause of the applicant's injuries was the shooting, not the use or operation of the vehicle.

The application was dismissed as the incident did not meet the definition of an 'accident' under section 3(1) of the Schedule.

The respondent's request for costs was also dismissed.

The claimant, an Ontario resident, was catastrophically injured in a motor vehicle accident in Nunavut while driving a Nunavut-plated vehicle insured by the appellant.

The respondent, the claimant's Ontario insurer, paid Ontario statutory accident benefits and sought reimbursement from the appellant under the priority provisions of the Ontario Insurance Act.

The arbitrator and appeal judge ruled in favour of the respondent.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the appellant was not an 'Ontario insurer' for the purposes of the priority dispute and that the Ontario Insurance Act could not be applied extraterritorially to a Nunavut policy for an accident occurring in Nunavut.

The appellant insurer appealed an arbitration award finding it responsible for paying statutory accident benefits to a pedestrian struck by a vehicle.

The appellant had initially agreed to accept priority for the claim but later sought to withdraw its acceptance, arguing it was made in error.

The Superior Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the arbitrator's finding that an insurer cannot unilaterally withdraw its agreement to accept priority absent exceptional circumstances.

The court confirmed that the acceptance of priority precluded the insurer from initiating a priority dispute arbitration under the regulation.

Two Ontario residents injured in separate accidents outside Ontario involving an all-terrain vehicle (ATV) and a dirt bike sought statutory accident benefits (SABs) under their Ontario automobile insurance policies.

Both insurers denied coverage, arguing that the definition of "automobile" under Ontario law should be determined by the law of the jurisdiction where the accidents occurred (lex loci delicti).

The Court of Appeal held that Ontario law applies to the interpretation of Ontario contracts and statutes, and that the definition of "automobile" in the Insurance Act and Off-Road Vehicles Act applies uniformly regardless of where the accident occurs.

Both vehicles qualified as automobiles under the extended definition because they would have required insurance if operated in Ontario under the Off-Road Vehicles Act.

The court allowed the appeal of the insured and dismissed the appeal of the insurer.

The applicant was catastrophically injured while driving a dirt bike in a closed course motocross competition.

The insurer denied his claim for accident benefits, relying on an exclusion under s. 2(1) 5 of O. Reg. 863 under the Off-Road Vehicles Act for vehicles driven at a closed course competition or rally sponsored by a motorcycle association.

A preliminary motion decision found the applicant was excluded from benefits.

On reconsideration, the Associate Chair found the adjudicator erred in statutory interpretation by applying the last antecedent rule to conclude that closed course competitions did not need to be sponsored by a motorcycle association to be exempt, and by finding that the organizing corporation qualified as a motorcycle association.

The Request for Reconsideration was granted, and the applicant was found not to be excluded from receiving accident benefits.

The appellant, an out-of-province insurer, appealed an arbitrator's decision finding that the priority provisions in s. 268 of the Insurance Act applied to it for a motor vehicle accident that occurred in Ontario.

The appellant argued that applying the Ontario legislation would have an extra-jurisdictional effect.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, applying the reasonableness standard of review.

The court held that because the accident occurred in Ontario and the appellant had signed a Power of Attorney and Undertaking (PAU), it was bound by the priority provisions of the Insurance Act.

Northbridge General Insurance Corporation appealed an arbitrator's decision that designated it as the priority insurer for accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

Northbridge contended that Co-Operators General Insurance Company failed to provide proper notice under section 3(1) of Ontario Regulation 283/95, thereby precluding Co-Operators from asserting Northbridge's priority.

The Superior Court of Justice applied a reasonableness standard of review to the arbitrator's decision, consistent with The Dominion of Canada General Insurance Company v. Unifund Assurance Company.

The court upheld the arbitrator's finding that Co-Operators' initial failure to notify Northbridge directly under section 3(1) was not fatal, as Intact Insurance Company subsequently provided notice to Northbridge under section 10(1) of the Regulation.

The court emphasized the practical realities of priority investigations and the public policy of ensuring timely benefit payments.

The appeal was dismissed, and Northbridge was ordered to pay costs to both respondents.

The applicant was injured while driving a dirt bike at a closed course competition and sought statutory accident benefits.

The respondent denied the claim on the basis that the dirt bike was not an 'automobile' under the Schedule.

The Tribunal held that the dirt bike was exempt from the requirement to be insured under section 2(1)(e) of O. Reg. 863 under the Off-Road Vehicles Act, as it was driven at a closed course competition.

Consequently, the dirt bike did not meet the definition of an automobile, and the applicant was not involved in an 'accident' entitling him to benefits.

The application was dismissed.

The appellant, Travelers Insurance Company, appealed an arbitrator's decision that it was the priority insurer for statutory accident benefits following an accident in Nunavut.

The arbitrator found Travelers liable because it was an Ontario insurer, had filed a Power of Attorney and Undertaking (PAU) in Ontario, and was the insurer of the car involved.

Travelers argued the arbitrator erred by applying Ontario law to a Nunavut policy without first determining if the policy provided Ontario benefits coverage.

The court upheld the arbitrator's decision, finding that the standard of review was reasonableness and that Travelers, as an Ontario-licensed insurer and PAU signatory, was bound by Ontario's priority laws, precluding it from denying coverage based on the accident's location.

Two consolidated appeals concerning the standard of review applicable to insurance arbitral decisions resolving priority disputes under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule (SABS).

The first appeal involved a claimant listed as an excluded driver on his parents' policy who was injured as a passenger in another vehicle.

The second involved a claimant similarly listed as an excluded driver who was injured while driving an uninsured motorcycle.

The central issue was whether excluded drivers could qualify as "insured persons" under the SABS definition and thus trigger priority coverage under their parents' policies.

The Court of Appeal held that the appropriate standard of review for such arbitral decisions is reasonableness, not correctness, and that arbitrators' interpretations of the SABS and insurance policies within their specialized expertise warrant deference.

The applicant insurer sought to appeal an arbitration decision regarding priority for paying statutory accident benefits for an extra-provincial motor vehicle accident.

The applicant argued that leave to appeal was not required because the parties had entered into an unwritten arbitration agreement permitting appeals on questions of law or mixed fact and law.

The court found that the parties' conduct and communications evidenced a binding arbitration agreement containing the appeal provision.

Consequently, the applicant was entitled to appeal the arbitrator's decision without leave.