Tracy Lea Brooks

The appellant insurer appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision finding that the respondent was entitled to statutory accident benefits following a motorcycle accident.

The respondent had purchased the motorcycle the day before the accident but had not yet notified the insurer, who insured his other vehicle.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that a motorcycle is a 'motor vehicle' required to be insured, and therefore an 'automobile' under the Insurance Act.

Consequently, the motorcycle qualified as a 'newly acquired automobile' under section 2.2.1 of the standard Ontario Automobile Policy, which provides automatic coverage for a 14-day grace period regardless of the insurer's internal policy against insuring motorcycles.

The appellant insurer appealed a decision of the Licence Appeal Tribunal finding that the respondent was involved in an 'accident' under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The respondent was injured while 'car surfing' on the rear bumper of a moving vehicle.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the adjudicator's application of the purpose test.

The court found that while reckless, the vehicle was being used for its normal purpose of transportation, and thus the incident constituted an accident.

The appellant insurer appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) decision regarding the respondent's entitlement to attendant care benefits under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule (SABS).

The LAT had found that the respondent's personal support worker did not need to prove economic loss, as she was providing services in the course of her ordinary employment, even though she was hired after the accident.

The Divisional Court held that the standard of review for the LAT's interpretation of the SABS is reasonableness.

The Court found the LAT's interpretation of s. 3(7)(e)(iii)(A) to be reasonable and consistent with the legislative intent to prevent abuse by unqualified family members, rather than to bar legitimate services.

The appeal was dismissed.

Two consolidated appeals concerning the standard of review applicable to insurance arbitral decisions resolving priority disputes under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule (SABS).

The first appeal involved a claimant listed as an excluded driver on his parents' policy who was injured as a passenger in another vehicle.

The second involved a claimant similarly listed as an excluded driver who was injured while driving an uninsured motorcycle.

The central issue was whether excluded drivers could qualify as "insured persons" under the SABS definition and thus trigger priority coverage under their parents' policies.

The Court of Appeal held that the appropriate standard of review for such arbitral decisions is reasonableness, not correctness, and that arbitrators' interpretations of the SABS and insurance policies within their specialized expertise warrant deference.

Matthew B, an excluded driver under his parents' Dominion policy, was injured while driving an uninsured motorcycle.

Belairdirect, insurer of the other vehicle, sought to establish priority for accident benefits.

An arbitrator found Matthew B to be an "insured person" under Dominion's policy but felt bound by a prior Superior Court decision (Dominion v. State Farm) to rule in favour of Belairdirect.

Belairdirect appealed.

The Superior Court, applying a reasonableness standard of review to the arbitrator's underlying analysis, found the arbitrator's initial conclusion that Matthew B was an "insured person" under the Dominion policy to be reasonable.

The court overturned the arbitrator's final decision, holding that Dominion has first priority to respond to Matthew B's accident benefits claim.

This is an appeal from an arbitration decision concerning a priority dispute between two insurers, Allstate and Intact, regarding statutory accident benefits for Ming Wu Yan.

The central issue was whether Yan was "principally dependent for financial support or care" on her daughter or son-in-law, which would make her an insured person under Allstate's policy.

The court upheld the arbitrator's finding that Yan was principally financially dependent, dismissing Allstate's appeal.

The court affirmed the arbitrator's decision not to impute monetary value to Yan's caregiving services and to exclude her foreign pension income, which was unavailable in Canada, from the dependency analysis.

The court also confirmed that the test for financial dependency requires a holistic "big picture" approach, not solely a mathematical calculation.

The appellant, an Ontario resident, was injured in a motorcycle accident in British Columbia while a passenger on a motorcycle driven by an Alberta resident.

The appellant sued the driver, his insurer, and her own Ontario insurer in Ontario.

The driver successfully moved to stay the action against him for lack of jurisdiction.

On appeal, the appellant argued her Ontario insurance contract, which required her to sue her insurer in Ontario, was a presumptive connecting factor giving Ontario jurisdiction over the entire dispute.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming that an insurance contract is not a presumptive connecting factor over an extra-provincial tortfeasor, and declined to apply the forum of necessity doctrine as the appellant could pursue her claim in British Columbia.