The appellant sought judicial review of an arbitrator's decision that found the appellant in higher priority to pay accident benefits to an injured non-occupant.
The core issue was the interpretation of "spouse" under the Insurance Act, specifically whether the injured party and the appellant's insured had "lived together in a conjugal relationship" for the requisite three years.
The court applied a reasonableness standard of review to the arbitrator's interpretation, which had relied on family law definitions of "spouse" and a holistic approach.
The court found the arbitrator's decision unreasonable for failing to distinguish the policy context of the Insurance Act from the Family Law Act, and for applying a non-literal interpretation of "live together" without proper justification in the insurance context.
The appeal was allowed, the arbitrator's decision quashed, and the respondent declared in priority.
