The court quashed an arbitrator's decision for unreasonably applying family law interpretations of 'spouse' to an insurance priority dispute.
The appellant sought judicial review of an arbitrator's decision that found the appellant in higher priority to pay accident benefits to an injured non-occupant.
The core issue was the interpretation of "spouse" under the Insurance Act, specifically whether the injured party and the appellant's insured had "lived together in a conjugal relationship" for the requisite three years.
The court applied a reasonableness standard of review to the arbitrator's interpretation, which had relied on family law definitions of "spouse" and a holistic approach.
The court found the arbitrator's decision unreasonable for failing to distinguish the policy context of the Insurance Act from the Family Law Act, and for applying a non-literal interpretation of "live together" without proper justification in the insurance context.
The appeal was allowed, the arbitrator's decision quashed, and the respondent declared in priority.
SCJSuperior Court of JusticeJul 10, 2018
