Gerald George

The applicant was involved in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits under his sister's insurance policy.

The respondent denied coverage, arguing the applicant was not principally dependent on his sister for care.

The Tribunal found that the applicant, a student living away from home, maintained his permanent residence with his sister and relied on her for physical and emotional support.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant was principally dependent for care on his sister and is therefore an insured person under the policy.

The applicants, two brothers, suffered serious burn injuries from an explosion and fire while replacing the fuel pump of an inoperable vehicle in a residential garage.

They applied for statutory accident benefits, which their insurers denied on the basis that the incident was not an 'accident' under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal held a preliminary issue hearing to determine if the incident met the definition of an accident.

Applying the purpose and causation tests, the Tribunal found that repairing an inoperable vehicle hoisted on jacks is not an ordinary and well-known activity to which automobiles are put by motorists.

The Tribunal concluded the applicants were not using the vehicle for a motoring purpose, and therefore the incident was not an accident within the meaning of the Schedule.

The applications for benefits were dismissed.

The respondent, an Ontario insurer, paid statutory accident benefits to Ontario residents injured in a motor vehicle accident in British Columbia.

The respondent sought indemnification from the appellant, a British Columbia insurer, under section 275 of the Ontario Insurance Act.

The appellant argued the Ontario legislation could not constitutionally apply to it.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the superior court, not an arbitrator, should determine the constitutional applicability of the statute.

The Court further held that the Ontario Insurance Act was constitutionally inapplicable to the out-of-province appellant because there was an insufficient connection between Ontario and the appellant to justify the extraterritorial application of the provincial regulatory scheme.