Tracy Brooks

The appellant, an Uber driver, sought accident benefits after an altercation with passengers resulted in him swerving his vehicle and injuring his knee.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal denied the claim, finding the incident did not meet the definition of an 'accident' under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule as it failed both the purpose and causation tests.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Tribunal applied the correct legal tests from Chisolm and that the appellant's challenges were impermissible appeals of factual findings.

Following a successful jurisdiction motion, the moving defendant sought substantial costs of the Ontario proceeding.

The responding plaintiff argued that no costs should be awarded because the motion raised novel post-Van Breda jurisdiction issues intertwined with uninsured and underinsured automobile coverage provisions.

The court accepted that submission, finding the motion was reasonably brought and reasonably resisted and that the novelty and complexity of the issues made it fair for each party to bear their own costs.

No costs were awarded.

An Ontario resident injured as a passenger in a British Columbia motorcycle accident sued the Alberta-resident driver in Ontario and also sued her Ontario automobile insurer under uninsured and underinsured coverage.

On the driver's motion to stay for want of jurisdiction, the court held there was no real and substantial connection between Ontario and the tort claim.

The inclusion of the contractual insurance claim against the Ontario insurer did not create jurisdiction over the out-of-province tort defendant.

The forum of necessity doctrine did not apply because the plaintiff retained access to justice through proceedings in British Columbia and could still pursue insurance coverage in Ontario.