5 total
Tripping over a parked motorcycle qualifies as an accident for statutory accident benefits.
The respondent was injured when he tripped over a motorcycle parked on a walkway between trailers at a campsite.
The appellant insurer denied statutory accident benefits, arguing the incident did not meet the definition of an 'accident' under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.
The application judge found that the temporary parking of the motorcycle constituted an ordinary or well-known use of the vehicle, satisfying the purpose test.
The Court of Appeal upheld the decision, confirming that parking a vehicle is an ordinary and well-known activity to which vehicles are put, and dismissed the appeal.
Collision with negligently parked motorcycle qualifies as accident under SABs.
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.
Insurer ordered to produce complete adjuster's file or provide specific rationale for privilege claims.
The applicant, who suffered a spinal cord injury in a snowmobile accident, sought production of the insurer's complete adjuster's file from the date of the Application for Mediation onwards.
The insurer argued that documents created after the mediation application were protected by litigation or solicitor-client privilege.
The arbitrator found that the adjuster's file was reasonably relevant to the ongoing dispute over catastrophic impairment and a special award.
The arbitrator rejected the presumption that the file is automatically privileged after the mediation application date, ordering the insurer to disclose the entire file or provide a specific list of documents with a rationale for any claims of privilege.
Insured ordered to pay insurer's $1,000 assessment for abuse of process due to counsel's delay.
The insurer brought a motion to dismiss the insured's application for arbitration and for payment of its $1,000 assessment, arguing the insured's conduct constituted an abuse of process.
The insured's counsel had requested an adjournment but subsequently failed to coordinate a new hearing date or respond to numerous communications from the Commission and the insurer over a six-month period.
The arbitrator found that the unexplained failure to respect the Commission's procedures and respond to inquiries constituted an abuse of process.
However, the arbitrator declined to dismiss the arbitration, instead ordering the insured to pay the insurer's $1,000 assessment as a condition of proceeding with a rescheduled hearing.
Progressive held liable for accident benefits; short-term income benefits awarded based on pre-accident job offer.
The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and applied for accident benefits.
A priority dispute arose between the insurer of the vehicle he was in (State Farm) and his brother's insurer (Progressive).
The arbitrator found the applicant was principally dependent on his brother for financial support, making Progressive liable.
The applicant also claimed weekly income benefits based on a job offer made shortly before the accident.
The arbitrator accepted that a legitimate offer of employment existed but found the applicant's accident-related disability resolved by mid-June 1991.
Weekly income benefits were awarded for that limited period, along with arbitration expenses.
