The appellant sought income replacement benefits (IRBs) under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule following a motor vehicle accident.
The central issue was the correct interpretation of the test for post-104-week IRBs under section 6(2)(b) of the Schedule.
The appellant argued that the test requires consideration of employment in a competitive, real-world setting comparable in nature, status, and remuneration to the insured's former employment.
The respondent insurer argued that the statutory test does not include such requirements.
The Court of Appeal upheld the lower courts' decisions, holding that while factors such as competitive real-world setting, status, and remuneration are relevant considerations in the evidence-based analysis, they are not stand-alone requirements of the test.
The appellant failed to prove a complete inability to engage in any employment for which she was reasonably suited by education, training, or experience, particularly given evidence that wedding planning remained a viable option.
