Rebecca Balaban

The appellant appealed a summary judgment decision, arguing there were two genuine issues for trial: where the passenger was seated during the crash, and the damages she would have suffered had she worn a seat belt.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no evidence to support the appellant's position on the seating location and agreeing with the motion judge that expert evidence showed seat belt use would have made no difference.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment decision regarding a motor vehicle accident.

The appellant argued there were genuine issues for trial concerning where the injured party was seated and whether wearing a seat belt would have mitigated her damages.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no evidence to support the appellant's position on the seating location and agreeing with the motion judge that expert evidence showed a seat belt would have made no difference.

The applicant suffered severe burns when gasoline spilled from his taxi's gas tank during repairs at a garage and ignited.

The insurer denied statutory accident benefits, arguing the fire was an independent intervening act that broke the chain of causation from the vehicle's repair.

The arbitrator found that the injuries were directly caused by the use or operation of the vehicle, as the repair process set in motion an unbroken chain of events leading to the fire.

The presence of fire hazards in a garage was considered a normal incident of the risk created by repairing a vehicle.

The applicant was deemed to have been injured in an 'accident' under the Schedule and was awarded expenses for the preliminary hearing.