Jason Bayley

The applicants claimed statutory accident benefits following a reported hit-and-run motor vehicle collision.

The insurer denied the claims, arguing the applicants were not involved in an 'accident' as defined in the Schedule and putting them to strict proof that the collision occurred as reported.

Following a preliminary issue hearing, the arbitrator found the applicants' evidence credible and corroborated by circumstantial evidence, while finding the insurer's accident reconstruction evidence unpersuasive.

The arbitrator concluded that the applicants were involved in an accidental collision and were therefore involved in an 'accident' under subsection 2(1) of the Schedule.

The respondent was convicted of seven counts of dangerous driving causing bodily harm after a high-speed collision.

The trial judge suspended the passing of sentence and imposed two years' probation and a two-year driving prohibition, relying heavily on the parity principle due to the lenient sentence received by the other driver involved.

The Crown appealed.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding the trial judge erred in applying the parity principle and failed to adequately reflect general deterrence and denunciation.

A nine-month custodial sentence and a five-year driving prohibition were substituted.