Court File and Parties
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE – ONTARIO
DIVISIONAL COURT
RE: CERTAS HOME AND AUTO INSURANCE COMPANY, Applicant / Appellant
AND:
STEPHANE OKENGE, and LICENCE APPEAL TRIBUNAL, Respondents
BEFORE: Matheson, Muszynski and Brownstone JJ.
COUNSEL: Michael Chadwick, for Certas Home and Auto Insurance Company Brenda Hollingsworth, for Stephane Okenge Sabrina Fiacco, for Licence Appeal Tribunal
HEARD: February 25, 2026, at Toronto
Endorsement
1In this consolidated proceeding, Certas Home and Auto Insurance Company (Certas) appeals and seeks judicial review of a reconsideration decision from the Licence Appeal Tribunal (the Tribunal) that upholds the finding that Stephane Okenge was principally dependant on his sister for care and therefore an insured person under her automobile insurance policy with Certas.
Background
2When he was 14 years old, Stephane moved from Uganda, where he lived with his mother, to Ottawa, where his older sister Gisele lived. The primary purpose of Stephane’s move to Ottawa was to attend Canada Topflight Academy for Basketball on a scholarship. Before he started school in Ottawa, Stephane lived with Gisele for three months. Consistent with Topflight’s policy for scholarship students, when school started Stephane was billeted with a local family but frequently spent time at Gisele’s apartment.
3Stephane then attended high school in Oklahoma, again on a basketball scholarship. During the remainder of his high school years, Stephane lived in Oklahoma with a billet family. He was ultimately recruited to attend York University in Nebraska on a basketball scholarship. While he was attending school in the United States, Stephane returned to live with Gisele over holidays, in the summer, to undergo a medical procedure, and during a portion of the COVID-19 pandemic.
4Stephane was living in a university student residence in Nebraska when he was involved in a motor vehicle accident on October 23, 2022 that rendered him tetraplegic. The accident occurred in the United States. At the time of the accident, Stephane was 19 years old.
5Stephane did not have his own vehicle or his own automobile insurance policy. A claim for statutory accident benefits was filed on his behalf with Certas, Gisele’s automobile insurer.
6Certas denied the claim for benefits on the basis that Stephane was not an insured person under the policy. Stephane applied to the Tribunal for resolution of the dispute.
7The sole issue before the Tribunal for adjudication was whether Stephane was an insured person under the policy issued by Certas to Gisele. The matter proceeded to a written hearing.
8On April 22, 2025, Adjudicator Melanie Malach released a decision finding that Stephane had proven on a balance of probabilities that he was principally dependant for care on his sister. On that basis, Stephane was determined to be an insured person under Gisele’s automobile policy: Okenge v. Certas Home and Auto Insurance Company, 2025, 35932 (ON LAT).
9Certas requested reconsideration of the Tribunal’s decision. On July 28, 2025, Adjudicator Malach released the reconsideration decision concluding that there was no error of law or fact such that the Tribunal would likely have reached a different result had the error not been made. Certas’ request for reconsideration was dismissed: Okenge v. Certas Home and Auto Insurance Company, 2025 75770 (ON LAT). In reaching this conclusion, the Adjudicator found that Certas’ request for reconsideration was essentially an attempt to re-argue its original case.
10In this court, Certas submits that the Tribunal erred in law or reached an unreasonable conclusion by upholding the decision that Stephane was principally dependant on Gisele for care at the time of the accident when he had been living independently for years prior to the collision.
Standard of Review
11An appeal from a decision of the Tribunal lies to the Divisional Court on questions of law: Licence Appeal Tribunal Act, 1999, S.O. 1999, c. 12, Sched. G, at ss. 11(1), 11(6). The standard of review for errors in law is correctness: Housen v. Nikolaisen, 2002 SCC 33, [2002] 2 S.C.R. 235, at para. 8.
12The presumptive standard of review on a judicial review application is reasonableness: Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65, [2019] 4 S.C.R. 653 (Vavilov), at paras. 23-25.
13Certas agrees that the Adjudicator identified the correct legal test to determine whether a relationship of principal dependency existed at the material time. Rather, Certas submits that the Adjudicator failed to properly apply the law to the facts in this case. In our view, this does not give rise to a legal error but raises a question of mixed fact and law. To succeed on the application for judicial review, Certas bears the burden of demonstrating that the decision was unreasonable.
Relevant provisions of the [SABS](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/stat/rso-1990-c-i8/latest/rso-1990-c-i8.html)
14The Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule – Effective September 1, 2010, O. Reg. 34/10, a regulation made under the Insurance Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. I.8 (SABS) sets out the rules involved with making and administering claims for various categories of benefits available to individuals injured in motor vehicle collisions.
15Benefits under the SABS are available to an “insured person” under an automobile insurance policy: s. 2(4).
16The definition of an “insured person” extends beyond the named insured and can include a dependant of a named insured or their spouse: s. 3(1). In this case, Gisele was a named insured on the Certas policy.
17A person is considered a dependant for the purpose of s. 3(1) if they are “principally dependent for financial support or care” on the named insured or their spouse: s. 3(7)(b).
Analysis
18Certas alleges that the Adjudicator failed to apply the analysis of dependency endorsed in Oxford Mutual Insurance Company v. Co-Operators General Insurance Company, 2006 37956 (ON CA) (Oxford), Miller v. Safeco Insurance Co. of America, 1984 2019 (ON SC), affirmed 1985 2002 (ON CA) (Miller), and Co-Operators General Insurance Co. v. TD Home & Auto Insurance 2014 ONSC 1604 (Co-Operators).
19More specifically, Certas claims that the Adjudicator did not:
a) appreciate that “principally” means “mainly”, “chiefly”, or “for the most part” (Oxford);
b) consider the factors that establish dependency as set out in Miller, including, the amount and duration of dependency, financial or other needs of the alleged dependant, and their ability to be self-supporting;
c) compare the level of support Stephane received from Gisele with the support he provided himself or was provided to him by others (Co-Operators); and
d) consider that a finding of vulnerability is generally required for a finding of dependency for care.
20However, the Adjudicator specifically referred to each of the cases identified by Certas and addressed the above issues.
21In reaching the conclusion that Stephane was principally dependent on Gisele for care, the Adjudicator considered the following:
a) While Stephane lived out of the city of Ottawa to attend school for long periods of time, he maintained his sister’s address as his permanent address and returned to her home during holidays and summers.
b) Given the lack of relationship with his father, and the distance from his mother, Gisele had become like a parent to Stephane. He depended on her for physical and emotional support and care.
c) Stephane’s needs evolved from when he was a 14-year-old boy to when he was a 19-year-old university student.
d) Stephane had learning difficulties in school and suffered several injuries after moving to Canada. Gisele FaceTimed with Stephane multiple times a week, sometimes daily, to provide him guidance and support and to ensure he had what he needed.
e) Stephane’s mother was unable to provide him with frequent support and was mostly absent from his life in the years leading up to the accident.
f) Stephane never lived independently in his own residence and never supported himself financially.
g) Stephane was able to attend school away from home and function as a high-performance athlete with the main support of Gisele.
22The Adjudicator considered and rejected Certas’ argument that Stephane was self-supporting. The Adjudicator also compared the care provided to Stephane by his sister to the care provided to him by others and found that there was insufficient evidence that anyone else provided Stephane a similar level of care. Further, the Adjudicator rejected Certas’ argument that one who is dependant for care on another must be physically or mentally vulnerable, stating that an analysis of an entire fact situation must be considered on a case-by-case basis. Stephane’s educational vulnerabilities, physical, emotional and social needs were factors that were considered by the Adjudicator in reaching the conclusion that Stephane was dependent on his older sister for care.
23The Adjudicator identified the correct legal principles and applied those principles to the evidence in a manner that produced reasons that are justified, transparent and intelligible: Vavilov at para. 100.
Conclusion and Costs
24Certas has not demonstrated that the Adjudicator committed any legal error nor that the decisions were unreasonable. The appeal and judicial review are dismissed.
25As agreed to by the parties, there will be no cost award.
Matheson J.
Muszynski J.
Brownstone J.
Date: February 27, 2026