Sig Pantazis

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits after injuring his back while changing his vehicle's winter tires to summer tires in his driveway.

The respondent insurer denied the claim on the basis that the incident did not meet the definition of an 'accident' under section 3(1) of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The Tribunal held that performing planned seasonal maintenance, such as changing tires on a parked and disabled vehicle, does not constitute the 'use or operation' of an automobile.

The Tribunal found that it was not within the reasonable expectations of the insured to have coverage while performing such maintenance.

The preliminary issue was resolved in favour of the respondent.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for court approval of an infant settlement arising from a motor vehicle accident.

The court identified several deficiencies in the motion record, including a lack of clarity on the scope of the settlement approval sought (whether it included the adult plaintiff's claims), insufficient evidence regarding the minor plaintiff Rider's specific losses for care, guidance, and companionship, and a potential conflict of interest for the litigation guardian (who was also an injured plaintiff) if the total damages claimed exceeded the defendant's insurance limits.

The court declined to approve the settlement at this stage and required additional materials and clarification before making a decision.