Harrow v. Intact Insurance Company
Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number: 19-012588/AABS
In the matter of an Application pursuant to subsection 280(2) of the Insurance Act, RSO 1990, c I.8., in relation to statutory accident benefits.
Between:
Donna Harrow
Applicant
and
Intact Insurance Company
Respondent
PRELIMINARY ISSUE DECISION AND ORDER
VICE-CHAIR: D. Gregory Flude
APPEARANCES:
For the Applicant: Donna Harrow, Applicant Paul Heselden, Counsel
For the Respondent: Oliver Gorman-Asal, Counsel Andrew White, Student-at-Law
Court Reporter: Bruce Porter
HEARD: by Videoconference: November 4, 5, 8 and 9, 2021
REASONS FOR DECISION AND ORDER ON A PRELIMINARY ISSUE
BACKGROUND
1The applicant, Donna Harrow, brings this preliminary issue motion to determine if she is entitled to statutory accident benefits pursuant to the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule — Effective September 1, 2010. O. Reg. 34/10 (the “Schedule”). What is at issue is whether a motor vehicle collision in which she was involved on September 20, 2018 was a necessary cause of the meningitis she was diagnosed with on December 5, 2018. If I find that it is, then she is entitled to reasonable and necessary treatment for any impairments she may have sustained as a result of the meningitis and sequelae.
2Ms. Harrow is highly accomplished. She has dedicated her working life to community service and is currently the Executive Director a community centre in Toronto. On September 20, 2018 she was involved in a motor vehicle accident on the Gardiner Expressway when the Uber in which she was a passenger rear-ended the car in front. She submits that this accident set in train an inexorable series of events that resulted in her contracting meningitis several months later, a disease that hospitalized her for an extended period and from which she has yet to fully recover. She is profoundly deaf in her left ear and has lost hearing in her right ear from the underlying infection. She also complains of loss of memory and diminished cognition, especially the ability to recall proper vocabulary when speaking.
3The respondent, Intact Insurance Company (“Intact”), submits that the meningitis was not directly caused by the accident. While it does not dispute that the proximate cause of the meningitis was the migration of streptococcal pneumoniae bacteria from the middle ear into the brain cavity, its position is that there no evidence to suggest