Daniel Strigberger

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.

A heavy commercial vehicle insured by the appellant initiated a chain reaction collision by rear-ending a stopped vehicle, which in turn rear-ended a vehicle insured by the respondent.

The respondent paid statutory accident benefits to its insured and sought loss transfer indemnification from the appellant.

The arbitrator held that under Rule 9(4) of the Fault Determination Rules, the appellant was 100 per cent at fault for the incident and liable to indemnify the respondent, despite the absence of a direct collision between their respective vehicles.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding that the plain meaning of Rule 9(4) imposes liability for the entire incident on the moving vehicle that initiates the chain reaction.

The appeal concerned a preliminary arbitration decision arising from a statutory accident benefits priority dispute under s. 268 of the Insurance Act and O. Reg. 283/95.

The appellant argued that the insurer initiating the dispute was required to conduct a reasonable investigation and give notice to all insurers potentially higher in priority before serving the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Fund.

The court held that the wording of s. 3 of the Regulation did not impose a general duty to investigate before giving notice and required notice only to insurers the initiating insurer claims are liable.

The court agreed with the arbitrator’s interpretation that the Regulation does not obligate the first insurer to notify every potentially higher-priority insurer or conduct a full investigation prior to issuing a priority dispute notice.

The arbitrator’s decision was upheld.

Two first party insurers paid statutory accident benefits to their insureds and made requests for loss transfer from second party insurers.

The second party insurers refused to pay, and the first party insurers initiated arbitration proceedings.

The second party insurers argued the claims were barred by the Limitations Act, 2002.

The Court of Appeal held that the two-year limitation period for loss transfer claims begins to run the day after the first party insurer makes a demand for loss transfer, not from the date the second party insurer definitively refuses to indemnify.

The appeals by the first party insurers were dismissed.