1 total
Injuries from a bomb planted under a vehicle do not constitute an automobile accident for statutory benefits.
The respondent was seriously injured when a bomb placed under the driver's seat of his parked vehicle exploded as he prepared to start it.
He applied for statutory accident benefits, and an arbitrator initially ruled the incident was an 'accident' under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule, applying the Supreme Court's reasoning in Amos.
On appeal, the Director's Delegate rescinded the arbitration order, finding that the Ontario legislation's 'caused by' wording is narrower than the 'arising from' wording in Amos.
The Delegate concluded that the respondent's injuries were caused by the independent act of the bomber using the vehicle as a location to hide the bomb, rather than by the ordinary use or operation of the automobile.
